Feedback: api-reference-transcripts-get

Documentation Feedback

Original URL: https://www.assemblyai.com/docs/api-reference/transcripts/get
Category: api-reference
Generated: 05/08/2025, 4:31:03 pm

---

Claude Sonnet 4 Feedback

Generated: 05/08/2025, 4:31:02 pm

Technical Documentation Analysis: Get Transcript API

Overall Assessment

This documentation has significant gaps in clarity, completeness, and user experience. While it covers the basic endpoint information, it lacks essential details that developers need to successfully implement the API.

Critical Issues to Address

1. Missing Information

Response Schema Documentation

• Issue: No detailed response body structure provided
• Impact: Developers don’t know what data to expect
• Solution: Add complete response schema with field descriptions

{
  "id": "string",
  "status": "queued | processing | completed | error",
  "text": "string",
  "confidence": 0.95,
  "audio_duration": 123.45,
  "created": "2023-01-01T00:00:00Z",
  "completed": "2023-01-01T00:01:30Z",
  "error": "string | null"
  // ... other fields
}

Authentication Details

• Issue: Vague authorization header format
• Solution: Specify exact format: "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY"

Rate Limiting Information

• Issue: 429 status mentioned but no rate limit details
• Solution: Add rate limit headers and policies

2. Unclear Explanations

Status Field Ambiguity

• Issue: Only mentions “completed” status
• Solution: Document all possible status values and their meanings:
  • queued: Transcript request received, waiting to process
  • processing: Audio is being transcribed
  • completed: Transcription finished successfully
  • error: Transcription failed

Error Response Format

• Issue: HTTP status codes listed without response body structure
• Solution: Add error response examples for each status code

3. Poor Examples Section

Duplicate Examples

• Issue: 8 identical curl examples with inconsistent placeholder formats
• Solution: Provide one comprehensive example per programming language

Missing Response Examples

• Issue: No example responses shown
• Solution: Add realistic response examples for different scenarios

Recommended Example Structure:

# Request
curl -X GET "https://api.assemblyai.com/v2/transcript/abc123-def456" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json"

# Successful Response (200)
{
  "id": "abc123-def456",
  "status": "completed",
  "text": "Hello world, this is a sample transcription.",
  "confidence": 0.951,
  "audio_duration": 15.3,
  // ... additional fields
}

# Error Response (404)
{
  "error": "Transcript not found",
  "status": 404
}

4. Structure Improvements

Recommended Documentation Structure:

1. Overview - Brief description and use cases
2. Authentication - Detailed auth requirements
3. Request Format - Endpoint, method, headers
4. Path Parameters - Enhanced with validation rules
5. Response Format - Complete schema documentation
6. Status Codes - Detailed explanations with example responses
7. Code Examples - Multiple languages with realistic data
8. Common Use Cases - Polling patterns, error handling
9. Related Endpoints - Links to transcript creation, listing

5. User Pain Points

Polling Guidance Missing

• Issue: Users don’t know how to check transcript status efficiently
• Solution: Add polling best practices and recommended intervals

Error Handling Guidance

• Issue: No guidance on handling different error scenarios
• Solution: Add troubleshooting section with common errors and solutions

Parameter Validation

• Issue: No information about transcript_id format or constraints
• Solution: Add validation rules (e.g., format, length limits)

Specific Actionable Improvements

Immediate Fixes (High Priority)

1. Remove duplicate curl examples
2. Fix inconsistent placeholder formats (transcript_id vs :transcript_id)
3. Add proper response body schema
4. Include realistic example responses
5. Specify exact authentication header format

Content Enhancements (Medium Priority)

1. Add comprehensive status value documentation
2. Include error response examples for each HTTP status
3. Add multiple programming language examples (Python, JavaScript, etc.)
4. Document rate limiting details
5. Add troubleshooting section

User Experience Improvements (Medium Priority)

1. Add “Next Steps” section linking to related endpoints
2. Include polling best practices
3. Add parameter validation details
4. Create quick start guide for common workflows
5. Add interactive API explorer if possible

Advanced Enhancements (Lower Priority)

1. Add SDKs examples if available
2. Include webhook alternatives for status updates
3. Add performance considerations
4. Include batch processing guidance if applicable

Conclusion

This documentation needs significant improvement to meet professional API documentation standards. The most critical issues are the missing response schema, duplicate examples, and lack of practical guidance for implementation. Addressing these issues will dramatically improve the developer experience and reduce implementation time.

---