get_transcript

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose pagination behavior (next_offset terminator) and asserts the content is unpaginated-original ASR rather than a derived summary. It omits permissions/auth requirements, error behavior, and what happens if paging stops early, so it is only partially transparent.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core read action front-loaded. The final sentence is compact but cryptic, so it costs a little clarity for its brevity.

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?

No annotations and no output schema mean the description has to cover both behavior and return shape; it does name return fields (indices, source_sha256, next_offset), which partly substitutes for the missing output schema. It still leaves check_id's provenance and the limit parameter unaddressed.

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% across three parameters (check_id, limit, offset), so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'next_offset' and the paging instruction gesture at offset, but limit and check_id — including where check_id comes from — are left entirely unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('ordered original ASR segments') and lists what the segments carry (indices, source_sha256). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_report and submit_review, though it never names an alternative tool for the same need.

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?

Gives a procedural rule ('Follow next_offset until null before reviewing') and a prohibition ('Never summarize the title as speech'), which is more than implied usage. However, it never says when to reach for this tool instead of get_report or submit_review, and the 'title as speech' warning is terse enough to require domain inference.

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