Get Incident Meeting Transcripts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing that empty recordings are skipped rather than returned as blanks, and that Scribe's summary accompanies the transcript. It also names the covered platforms, which sets expectations about what will be missing. Minor gap: no hint about size or truncation of long transcripts.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then payload shape, then use cases, then the empty-call caveat. Every sentence contributes distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 an output schema present, return structure need not be explained; the description covers source platforms, payload nature, and the empty-result rule, which is everything an agent needs to decide and call correctly for a 2-parameter read 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 100%, with both incident_id formats and the max_recordings default/cap documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond the implication that multiple calls may be covered; baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 opening sentence gives a concrete verb and resource ('Read what was said on an incident's calls') and the body specifies the exact payload: per-speaker-turn transcript text plus Scribe's summary. It implicitly separates itself from metadata-oriented siblings like get_meeting_recording by scoping to spoken content, but never names a sibling outright.

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 supplies clear usage contexts ('catch up on a call you missed', 'pull decisions and actions out of an incident bridge'), which tells an agent when this is the right tool. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or pointing at the recording-listing tools as the alternative for metadata-only needs.

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