get_transcript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns transcript data or current status if not ready, suggesting it is non-destructive. However, it lacks explicit mention of read-only behavior, permission requirements, or idempotency, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 concise with two well-structured sentences, front-loading the main purpose and adding a conditional note about unreadiness. Every sentence serves a distinct role without superfluous text.

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 the low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, return content, and polling hint. While it does not detail the return format beyond segments and plaintext, this is sufficient for agent invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'id', explaining it is the recording's public id or URL. The description does not add further semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool retrieves a recording's full transcript, specifying both timestamped segments and plaintext. It distinguishes from siblings like get_summary by focusing on transcript content.

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 advises polling or calling wait_for_artifacts if the transcript is not ready, providing clear guidance on alternative approaches. It implicitly defines when to use this tool (to get transcript) versus alternatives, though it could explicitly state preconditions like having a recording id.

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