get_rolling_transcript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'retrieves' and 'returns' text, implying a read operation, but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., stream must be monitored), side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. The mention of 'monitored stream' hints at a prerequisite but is insufficient.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action ('Retrieve'), and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and typical use.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits important context such as error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., stream must be monitored via monitor_live_stream), and behavior when no transcript is available. This leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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 50% (only minutes_back has a description). The tool description does not add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides. For example, stream_id is not described in the tool description, and minutes_back's description in schema is minimal. The description adds no extra semantic value.

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 retrieves rolling transcript from a monitored stream and returns concatenated text from the last N minutes, with a specific use case for LLM summarisation/sentiment. This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_speaker_stress, monitor_live_stream, and stop_monitor.

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 during an earnings call but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The context from sibling tools helps, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidelines.

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