voice_transcribe_file

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by revealing the polyphonic engine (Spotify Basic Pitch) and default monophonic engine (pyin). However, it omits details like output destination, prerequisites, and side effects.

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 short (two sentences) but lacks structure for parameter details. It is not wasteful, but the conciseness comes at the cost of missing essential parameter explanations.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain input file location, output behavior, or prerequisites like FL Studio state or extras installation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only covers 'polyphonic' (1 of 5 parameters). Required 'audio_path', 'min_note_sec', 'fmin_hz', 'fmax_hz' are left unexplained, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.

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 transcribes audio files (wav/flac/mp3/ogg) to MIDI notes, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes polyphonic vs monophonic modes but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like voice_to_piano_roll.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies polyphonic=True for chords/full-mix but lacks comparison with alternatives like voice_to_piano_roll or voice_record_and_transcribe.

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