Get Training Data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description's burden is lower. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as what 'training data' includes, return format, or any restrictions. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but too minimal—it fails to provide necessary context. It is front-loaded with the action, but the lack of completeness reduces effectiveness. Could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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, the description should clarify what the training data consists of (e.g., transcripts, page IDs, or model data) and how it relates to document tasks. It does not explain the return value or behavior, leaving ambiguity given the complexity of training data in Transkribus.

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?

The input schema covers both required parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline expectation.

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 it retrieves training data for a document, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from related siblings like transkribus_doc_get_validation_data or transkribus_doc_get_test_set. The verb 'Get' and resource 'training data' are specific, but the absence of distinction from alternatives keeps it from a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transkribus_doc_get_validation_data or transkribus_model_get_train_data. No prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions are mentioned.

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