conduyt_get_post_call_insight

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: read-only, nothing applied by the copilot, timing and null-state behavior, ledger failure/skip reasons, permission requirements, visibility scoping, and transcript trust warnings. These are exactly the operational details an agent needs before calling it.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and packed with relevant constraints, with little if any filler. It is dense and somewhat run-on, so it could be easier to scan, but the content is largely justified by the tool's complexity.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is complete for an agent: it covers the returned insight fields, possible ledger states, null behavior while insight is pending, permission model, and transcript safety. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 the schema already defines both parameters, but the description adds meaningful context for includeTranscript by explaining that it adds untrusted transcript text and that it must never be treated as instructions. It also implies the id identifies a recorded call, though it does not add syntax beyond the schema's UUID note.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it reads the post-call copilot's insight for a recorded call, including transcription ledger state and the stored insight contents. It distinguishes itself from acting tools by explicitly noting that conduyt_update_deal or conduyt_create_task are used to apply suggestions.

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?

It clearly establishes when the tool applies: recorded calls only, with insight available about a minute after recording, and null while still owed. It also states permission and visibility constraints, but it does not explicitly name conduyt_get_call or another sibling as the alternative for non-insight call data.

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