get_transcript

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is a read operation ('[read]') and describes the conditional behavior (returns text or instructs to transcribe). However, it does not detail the return format or what happens if the file hasn't been downloaded, missing some transparency.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences to convey the purpose, condition, and fallback instruction. No words are wasted, and the structure front-loads the key action.

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 tool has only one parameter, no annotations, but does have an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the core behavior and prerequisite. It lacks some context about error states or file existence requirements, but for a simple tool, this is sufficient.

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 description adds meaning to the single required parameter 'name' by implying it must refer to a downloaded file that has been transcribed. Although schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates by providing context for the parameter's expected value. Without additional detail like format or examples, it cannot score a 5.

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 clearly states the tool returns transcript text from a downloaded file, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('transcript text (.txt)'). It also distinguishes itself by mentioning the prerequisite condition, which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'download' and 'transcribe'.

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 tells the user when to use the tool ('if it has been transcribed') and when not to use it ('If none exists yet, tells you to run transcribe(name) first'). This provides clear context and an alternative action.

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