list_transcripts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('list') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, what happens if the directory is empty, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary details. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more informative to improve completeness without losing conciseness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'list' entails (e.g., file names, metadata), error conditions, or behavioral context. For a tool with minimal structured data, more descriptive detail is needed to adequately guide usage.

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 100%, with the parameter 'output_dir' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a default location, which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 verb ('list') and resource ('all available transcripts'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_supported_sites' or 'transcribe_video' beyond the resource type, missing explicit sibling distinction.

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. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether transcripts must exist in the directory, and doesn't mention sibling tools like 'transcribe_video' for creating transcripts or 'check_dependencies' for setup.

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