transcript

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It communicates a read-only operation via 'Read' and adds the slicing behavior with start/end seconds. It does not mention error handling or response size, but the output schema exists and the behavior is simple.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences deliver the core purpose and an optional feature without any wasted words. The structure is easy to scan and process.

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?

For a simple read tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers required input formats, optional parameters, and the slicing use case. It does not address edge cases like multiple title matches or not-found behavior, but these are not critical for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 compensates well. It explains that item_ref can be an id, URL, or title fragment, and that start/end are in seconds and optional for slicing. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema titles.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read the raw transcript of one item') and clarifies acceptable reference types (id, URL, or title fragment). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'digest' or 'recall' by focusing on raw transcript retrieval.

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 provides clear context: use when you need the raw transcript of a single item, optionally limited to a time slice. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the purpose is specific enough to imply the right scenario.

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