get_podcast_transcript

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly reveals that data comes from a local cache and requires a prior open/play action, which is non-obvious. It also states the return contains speaker-attributed text with timestamps, giving the user a clear expectation of output.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and purpose. Every sentence adds essential information (what the tool does, the output format, and the key prerequisite) with no wasted words or repetition.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, prerequisites, and return value. It does not mention possible errors or alternatives, but the tool is simple enough that the provided context is nearly complete. The reference in the schema to get_recent_podcast_episodes helps with context, though the description itself could have been even more explicit about the source of transcriptId.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage for both parameters, including detailed explanations for transcriptId and includeTimestamps. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Retrieves the full transcript for an episode from the local Apple Podcasts TTML cache.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_recent_podcast_episodes (which lists episodes) and play_podcast_episode (which plays audio) by focusing on the transcript retrieval function.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Requires the episode to have been opened/played at least once so the transcript file was cached locally.' This implicitly tells the user when to use this tool and what condition must be met. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the precondition is valuable contextual guidance.

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