Request a summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the crucial non-obvious behavior that the call is asynchronous — it returns immediately with status 'generating' rather than the finished text. It omits whether re-requesting overwrites an existing summary or what happens on a pending transcription.

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 short sentences, both front-loaded with the actionable facts: what it does, that it returns immediately with a generating status, and where to read the result. No filler.

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 3-param tool with no output schema, the asynchronous contract and the get_summary handoff cover the most important gaps. Missing are the meaning of the required id, behavior when a summary already exists, and any note on cost/latency of generation, so an agent could still invoke it incorrectly.

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 schema documents scene and language (67% coverage), but the only required parameter, id, has no description anywhere, and the description never clarifies what 'id' identifies (transcription vs. summary). Otherwise it adds nothing parameter-level beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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 (request a summary) tied to a finished transcription, and implicitly distinguishes itself from the read-side sibling get_summary. The phrase 'or a new one' is slightly ambiguous about regeneration vs. first-time creation, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Explicitly routes follow-up reads to get_summary, which is the main alternative an agent would otherwise confuse with this tool. It gives clear context for use but does not state when *not* to call it (e.g. when a summary already exists and is complete).

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