voicememos_transcribe_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait beyond the name — the default of returning the 10 most recent jobs when job_id is omitted — but says nothing about read-only nature, what 'progress' values look like, or whether terminal states (completed/failed) are distinguishable.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary mode and finishing with the conditional fallback. Nothing is wasted and the branching condition is stated precisely.

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 single optional-param read tool this covers both invocation modes, but with no output schema and no annotations, an agent still cannot tell what a 'progress' response contains or how to detect completion — the key question for a status tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single job_id parameter, and it does: it explains the omission case and the result-set cap. It does not describe the expected job_id format or where an agent obtains one, leaving a small gap.

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?

Names the resource ('transcription job') and the information returned ('progress'), and the fallback behavior makes the dual mode explicit. It does not reference the sibling voicememos_transcribe, which submits jobs, so the agent must infer the pairing itself.

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 dual-mode sentence implies you call it with a job_id to poll progress and without one to list recent jobs, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no note that it should be called after voicememos_transcribe, and no mention of a sibling for other listing needs.

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