get_transcript

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one real behavioral fact: the tool returns the corrected version when a correction exists and otherwise falls back to the original wording (优先纠错版，没纠错则原始版). However, it says nothing about permissions, what happens for a missing or invalid segment ID, whether corrected and original texts have different formats, or how long transcripts can be.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the object of retrieval and parenthetically stating the version-selection rule. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical could be cleaner as a separate clause.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs: one segment in, full text out, with a documented selection rule for which version is returned. Only failure behavior and ID provenance are missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single parameter, segment_id, and the schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must supply the meaning. It implies that the input is a segment of a recording, but it does not define the ID's form, source, or valid range beyond what the bare integer type already says. This is the minimum viable level rather than meaningful compensation for the missing schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The definition names a specific verb and resource: retrieve the complete text (完整文字) of a single audio segment. That is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_segments (enumeration) and search (querying), so an agent knows to use this tool for requesting one segment's text, but the definition never states this distinction explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: when you need the full text of a segment, call this tool with a segment ID. The definition does not say when to choose get_transcript instead of list_segments or search, and it states no preconditions or exclusions, so the selection guidance remains latent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.