transcribe_audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the tool returns full text with timestamps, omitting side effects such as audio file requirements, model download behavior, optional output file writing, or the special translated_text short-circuit path. The schema covers some parameters, but the description itself adds minimal behavioral depth.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the core action and purpose. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 rich schema with full parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and usage context. It explains the return value (full text with timestamps) and differentiates from search. Some behaviors (like the recommended model size) are left to the schema but are still covered, making the overall definition quite complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but the schema descriptions are already rich (e.g., model_size includes a strong guideline to always use tiny). The description's high-level context is helpful but not parameter-specific.

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: "Transcribe an audio file and return the full text with timestamps." It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling search tools by noting its utility is for complete transcription "rather than searching for specific keywords."

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 provides explicit context: use this tool when you need the complete transcription, not for keyword search. It implies the alternative (search tools) but does not name a specific sibling or mention other exclusions such as when to use a batch or speaker-identification tool. This is clear context without exhaustive exclusions.

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