SHOW_TRANSCRIPTION_RESULT

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It notes the return type (error or result) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The behavior is minimally described.

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 short and to the point, but the formatting with Args and Returns sections is slightly non-standard for MCP descriptions. It is mostly concise and front-loaded.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers the basic operation. However, it lacks context on prerequisites, error conditions, and expected state of the transcription, which would aid completeness.

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 0% coverage for the transcription_id parameter. The description adds context by stating it is a UUID, but does not explain where to obtain it, any format constraints, or potential values. This provides some value but is insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 and displays a transcription. While the purpose is specific, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like CHECK_TRANSCRIPTION_STATUSES or SHOW_AVAILABLE_FILES, though the distinctions are somewhat implicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., transcription job completion) or when not to use it.

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