validate_transcript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what is checked and does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, permissions, or rate limits. '檢查' weakly implies non-destructive behavior, but this is not explicit.

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 front-loaded, efficient sentence with no filler. It is concise, though slightly under-specified, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 annotations, no parameter explanations, and no usage guidance, the description is insufficient for an agent to safely pick this tool among many related siblings. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but not selection, parameter, or behavioral context.

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 by explaining podcast_id and episode_ref, but it does not mention either parameter. The only clues come from the schema's self-describing names and defaults (gooaye, latest), not from the description.

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 uses a specific verb ('檢查'/'check') and resource ('既有 transcript artifacts') and states the three evaluation outcomes: complete, valid, or suspected partial. This distinguishes it from transcription/search siblings, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transcribe_episode, search_transcripts, or get_episode. The word '既有' (existing) implies a precondition that artifacts already exist, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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