transcribe_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses very little. It implies a read-only listing but says nothing about ordering, pagination, retention window, or whether results are scoped to the caller – all relevant for a job-listing tool.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and returned status front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though it is terse to the point of under-specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the undocumented limit parameter and the absent usage context leave the agent without enough to call the tool confidently in edge cases.

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 0% and the single parameter (limit, default 20) is never mentioned in the description, so the agent learns nothing about how many jobs are returned or whether the list is truncated. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a clear verb (列出/list) and resource (轉字幕工作/transcription jobs) plus the returned content (各自狀態/each one's status). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling transcribe_status, which also concerns job status, so an agent must infer the distinction (list all vs. query one).

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus transcribe_status or transcribe_start, nor any prerequisite or scope conditions. The 'recent jobs' framing implies browsing, but nothing is explicit.

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