get_naming

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real value beyond them: the state-dependent 404 behavior and the deliberate omission of voice embeddings and audio. It stops short of describing response shape or whether the pending set is paginated, but the safety and failure profile is well covered.

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?

Three compact sentences: what is returned, when it is valid, and what is intentionally excluded. The scoping constraint is front-loaded and no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the suggestion and per-speaker duration, and it covers the failure mode and exclusions. For a single-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so jobID's type and requirement are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating that the job must be in the speakerNamingPending state for the parameter to be usable, tying the argument to a runtime precondition.

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 verb (read) and resource (speaker labels awaiting naming) plus the payload contents (app suggestion, per-speaker duration). It is clearly distinguished from the sibling writers confirm_naming/skip_naming without needing to name them, since the pending-read framing implies the write counterparts.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage: only meaningful while the job is in speakerNamingPending, and other states return 404. That is a clear use condition, though it never names an alternative tool (e.g., confirm_naming to finalize) or what to do instead when the state is wrong.

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