List conversation transcripts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key traits: 'Read-only', the auth prerequisite (cached cs_login), and result ordering ('newest first'). It stops short of pagination/rate-limit or default-scope behavior (e.g. what happens with no filters), which is a minor gap rather than a contradiction.

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 tight sentences with the resource and row contents front-loaded, then safety/auth, then sibling routing. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 nine-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return-content preview, ordering, auth prerequisite, and next-step tool, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Only default filtering scope and pagination nuance are left unstated, and the schema covers the numeric limits.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all nine parameters are already documented with defaults and the outcome enum. The description's field list (topics, tools fired, how the session ended) loosely corresponds to the search/outcome filters but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource ('Sessions people had with the published agent') and enumerates exactly what each row contains (when, turn count, first user ask, topics/tools, ending). It is clearly distinguishable from cs_get_transcript (full turn list) and cs_summarize_transcripts, which it names.

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 an explicit use case ('find the session behind a bad answer') and routes to the correct next tool ('then cs_get_transcript for the full turn list'), plus a prerequisite ('Needs a cached cs_login'). This is when-to-use plus alternative in a single sentence.

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