resolve_get_transcript

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and delivers: it explains timestamp semantics (timeline-relative seconds vs absolute frames), version requirements, scope ('0 = all' tracks), and the side effect of writing files via output_path. This is thorough behavioral disclosure beyond what structured data provides.

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?

Three dense, purposeful sentences with no filler; the main action is front-loaded and source-specific details are grouped clearly. The compact formatting conveys a high amount of information without wasted words.

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?

The description covers source selection, prerequisites, formats, and file output, which is substantial for an unannotated tool. However, it is incomplete for a 7-parameter tool: there is no output schema, and media_id/clip_name/max_entries are not defined, leaving clip-source invocation ambiguous.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents source, format, output_path, and subtitle_track (including 0=all), but leaves media_id, clip_name, and max_entries unexplained, creating gaps for clip-source selection and output limiting.

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 description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read transcript TEXT with timing,' then distinguishes two clear sources (captions vs clip). It obviously separates this tool from siblings like resolve_transcribe_audio and resolve_create_captions, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit prerequisite conditions per source: captions requires resolve_create_captions, and clip requires resolve_transcribe_audio. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or negative cases, but the mode-specific guidance is strong and actionable.

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