list_transcripts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. Although it does not explicitly say "read-only," the verbs "List" and "Returns" strongly imply a non-mutating operation, and the choice of "completed" adds a behavioral constraint. It does not disclose details like pagination or authentication, but for a simple listing tool the behavior is adequately transparent.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states the action, the second covers return type and a pointer to a sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no annotations), but an output schema is present, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. The description covers the contents (list of completed tasks with metadata) and references the next logical step (getting full text via get_transcript_status). This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The description adds no parameter-specific details because there are none to document. Per the calibration rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-parameter tools, and the description does not detract from that.

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+resource phrase "List all completed transcripts," which clearly states the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that get_transcript_status is used for full transcript text, whereas this tool returns a list with metadata.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to use get_transcript_status with a task_id when full transcript text is needed, providing a clear alternative and when-to-use distinction. This directly addresses when to use this tool versus its siblings.

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