get_transcript

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one important trait: the call is blocking for up to wait_seconds when the recording is still running. It does not say what is returned on timeout (empty transcript, partial result, or error), whether a missing recording errors, or whether the call is read-only.

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 sentence with no filler. The resource is front-loaded and the conditional wait behavior follows immediately, so the agent gets the essential facts in reading order.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. But for a blocking retrieval tool with zero annotations, the timeout outcome and error behavior for a nonexistent recording are unaddressed, leaving an agent unable to predict what happens at the wait boundary.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'recording' takes "latest" or a folder name, and wait_seconds caps how long it blocks while a recording is still running. Only the default values (schema-supplied) are not restated, which is fine.

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 specific resource (transcript) and identifies the input form ("latest" or folder name), so an agent knows this retrieves an existing transcript rather than generating one. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling transcribe_recording, so the get-vs-create distinction is inferred rather than stated.

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 clause "waiting up to wait_seconds if it is still running" implies this is safe to call while a recording is in progress, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus transcribe_recording or transcribe_file, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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