voicememos_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that changing the threshold re-renders without re-transcribing, that long transcripts are paginated via offset/max_chars with a 1000-100000 bound, and that three output formats exist. It stops short of stating read-only semantics or rate/auth constraints, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, then parameters are listed compactly with no filler. The Args block is slightly verbose but every line carries information an agent cannot get from the schema.

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 read tool with no output schema, this describes the return content (transcript with uncertainty marks, header in markdown) and pagination behavior. The dangling 'next_offset' reference and the absence of any statement about what json word-level data looks like are minor omissions.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must document all five parameters, and it does: memo accepts an 8-char prefix, format enumerates markdown/text/json, threshold defaults from config and only re-renders, offset is a character offset, and max_chars has an explicit range. The only gap is that offset references a 'next_offset' value that is never defined, since no output schema exists.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource: read one transcript, with the distinguishing trait of uncertainty marks. It is clearly not list/search/compare, but it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling read tool, voicememos_second_read.

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 implied through the prerequisite chain ('memo id from voicememos_list') and through the pagination hint ('see next_offset'), but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-versus-alternative guidance against second_read or compare_readers.

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