analyze_transcript

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns typed labels rather than prose, lists the dimensions analyzed, and explicitly warns to check publish_gate and confidence, which is a behavioral expectation. It also implies a decision model ('Jev') and its outputs. While it doesn't mention side effects or determinism, it provides substantial behavioral context beyond the schema, earning a 4.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and outputs; the second is a crisp actionable instruction. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key output dimensions (topic, sentiment, sensitivity, publish gate) and the critical follow-up action. It doesn't detail the exact structure of the result, but for an analysis tool returning typed labels, this is reasonably complete. The reference to confidence and publish_gate gives the agent enough to act on. A 4 is appropriate; a 5 would require more explicit return structure.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by clarifying the transcript's provenance ('output of transcribe_media / transcribe_file'), which is not in the schema description. It also frames the analysis outputs that relate to the categories parameter, though it doesn't explicitly explain how categories affect output. This added context elevates it above the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Run a transcript through Jev') and a concrete resource (transcript analysis), and enumerates the exact outputs: topic membership, sentiment, sensitivity flags, and a publish gate. It clearly distinguishes from siblings (transcribe_media/fetch_media/transcribe_file) which are about obtaining media, not analyzing it.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use it: after transcription ('output of transcribe_media / transcribe_file' is mentioned in the schema, and the description implies this is the analysis step). It also provides a directive on how to use the output ('Always check publish_gate + confidence before publishing'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative analysis tools, but given the sibling set, the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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