transcribe_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool transcribes using the Speechmatics API, but omits any details about side effects (e.g., writing output files), whether transcription is synchronous or asynchronous, cost implications, or required credentials. It does not describe what happens after transcription or how results are obtained. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It efficiently communicates the core function and scope. Every word earns its place, making it maximally concise without sacrificing clarity.

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 tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., API key configuration), output format or location, whether it returns anything, or how to retrieve results (e.g., via get_transcript). The user is left guessing about the full workflow, so the description fails to provide adequate context.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-level explanation beyond what the schema offers. According to the rubric, a high schema coverage (>80%) yields a baseline score of 3, and there is no additional semantic value from the description.

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's function: transcribing a single audio/video file. The word 'single' differentiates it from the sibling tool 'transcribe_directory', and the other siblings (get_transcript, get_usage) are clearly distinct. The verb 'transcribe' and resource 'file' are specific and unambiguous.

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 use for individual files by saying 'single audio/video file', but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like transcribe_directory. No exclusions or conditions are given. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it falls at the baseline of 'implied usage'.

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