assembly_live_captions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses that speakers are inferred from the chair's designation or self-introduction, that captions contain recognition errors, and that member is null with heard populated when the chair's name is not in the roster. It omits operational traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, or truncation behavior for max_chars.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, then the block shape, then the use case, then the caveat. Dense but every sentence carries information; slight compression loss from the parenthetical notation.

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 7-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, output shape, and accuracy caveats well, but leaves the xcode parameter completely unexplained and says nothing about default time ranges or what happens when the result exceeds max_chars. Those gaps matter for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 86%, so the schema already documents date/from/to/member/committee/max_chars, and the description adds no filtering syntax or format guidance. It does mention the member-block concept, giving indirect meaning to the member filter, but the undocumented xcode parameter is not explained anywhere.

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 names a specific resource (recorded live-caption STT) and a specific operation (grouping into per-member blocks), and clarifies that each block carries member/party/district plus timestamped transcript. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from (e.g., assembly_live, assembly_meeting_speeches), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clearly states the intended window of use: 'before minutes are published, for same-day verbatim remarks'. That implies the alternative (assembly_meeting_speeches after minutes exist) but does not name it or state an explicit exclusion.

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