get_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the report is per-segment and confidence-related, but does not mention any side effects, permissions, error behavior, or prerequisites beyond the clip being processed.

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 a single, concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the key output type and scope, with no redundant text.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core purpose and a prerequisite (processed clip), but lacks guidance on when to use it vs siblings and does not disclose behavioral details due to missing annotations.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It alludes to the 'clip' being a processed clip, but does not explicitly describe the parameter format, expected identifier, or relationship to the schema property.

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 the tool returns a 'Full per-segment speaker-confidence report' for a processed clip, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_transcript. The verb is implied but the resource and scope are specific enough.

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 implies usage requires a 'processed clip', giving some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_transcript or status, nor any exclusions.

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