List Page Transcripts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the notion that multiple transcript 'versions' exist for a page, but says nothing about pagination behavior, default result limits, or ordering despite index/nValues/sortColumn parameters existing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity leaves the sibling-differentiation burden entirely on the name rather than the structure.

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 read-only, idempotent list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with seven parameters and several closely named transcript siblings, it omits return-shape expectations (e.g. whether results are paginated via index/nValues) and any disambiguation, leaving real gaps.

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 seven parameters (id, page, collId, index, nValues, sortColumn, sortDirection) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics such as what a 'version' identifier means or how sorting applies, so the 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?

States a clear verb+resource: listing transcript versions for a page. It is immediately understandable, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as transkribus_page_get_curr_transcript, transkribus_page_get_transcript, or transkribus_page_count_transcripts, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which of these to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. collId/id/page must all refer to existing resources), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the large family of overlapping page/transcript tools.

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