CHECK_TRANSCRIPTION_STATUSES

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions return types (dict on failure, list on success) which is helpful, but does not specify pagination behavior, caching, or status values. It is minimal but not misleading.

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 separate Args and Returns sections, making it easy to scan. However, it could be shortened by removing redundant phrasing, but overall it is well-structured and not verbose.

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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic functionality and return types. However, it lacks context about how this tool fits into the workflow (e.g., polling for completion), and the return structure is only vaguely described as a list of dicts without field details.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'page' parameter as pagination for the transcription list, with a default of the most recent page. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default, though it could be more detailed about page size or offset.

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 '書き起こしの状態一覧を取得します' (get list of transcription statuses), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like START_TRANSCRIPTION_JOB or SHOW_TRANSCRIPTION_RESULT by focusing on statuses.

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 like SHOW_AVAILABLE_FILES or SHOW_TRANSCRIPTION_RESULT. It does not mention prerequisites, frequency of polling, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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