screenstudio_transcript_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by describing the return contents (word indices, source ms, phrase segmentation by pauses, filler words), which is what an agent needs to know before calling.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the payoff (the transcript contents), then the negative scoping clause. Minimal waste.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly spends its words describing what is returned. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, this is nearly complete — the only gap being the unexplained projectPath parameter.

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?

There is a single required parameter (projectPath) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — no format, no hint about which project. With coverage below 50%, the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read the transcript') and details the returned content: word index, source ms, phrases, filler words. The closing 'Does not generate or upload anything' implicitly distinguishes it from transcript_generate/transcript_edit, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied via the negation 'does not generate or upload anything', which hints this is the read-only path versus the generate/edit siblings. There is no explicit 'use this when you need X, otherwise use Y' routing.

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