pscribe_cat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It supplies detailed return format semantics (TOON format, source/status codes, text quoting), making the output behavior predictable. It also explains time-filter handling. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'Display' implies non-destructive operation.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear lead statement, bulleted output format details, and a usage example. It is somewhat lengthy but every section contributes value, and it avoids redundancy. The front-loaded purpose and organized format make it easy to scan.

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 query tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return format and the primary historical use case. It does not explicitly describe the interaction between 'session_ids' and time filters beyond what the schema already states, but the schema covers that. Overall, it is complete enough for a 6-parameter tool.

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 the schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description adds guidance on interpreting time references for 'since'/'until' but does not add new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the structured schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states 'Display complete transcript sessions with time-based filtering.' It identifies the specific resource (transcript sessions) and distinguishes from siblings like pscribe_tail (real-time streaming) and pscribe_grep (search) by focusing on full historical session display. The verb 'Display' and resource scope are precise.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for historical queries like...' providing concrete use cases and guidance on converting natural language time references to ISO8601. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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