audio_transcribe

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 explains the tool uses a local Whisper model and requires an optional dependency, which is useful. However, it does not disclose output structure, error behaviors, or resource implications like model download on first run. It remains a basic but acceptable disclosure for a non-destructive operation.

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 well-organized: purpose first, then dependency installation, then a parameter list. It is reasonably concise and front-loads the core function. The only minor inefficiency is the dependency sentence could be shortened, but it is essential for usability.

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 has an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description need not explain return values. It covers the required dependency, parameter semantics, and local processing. The absence of error or limitation mentions is minor for a relatively simple transcription tool. It seems complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 description adds meaningful context to each parameter beyond the schema. 'source' is explained as a local file path or direct URL, 'language' includes examples and auto-detect behavior, and 'max_chars' clarifies the default cap meaning. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage and provides actionable usage details.

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 purpose: 'Transcribe speech in an audio file to text using a local Whisper model (faster-whisper).' It specifies a distinct verb (transcribe), a resource (audio file), and the method (Whisper). This is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like audio_convert or audio_trim, and even video_transcript, which targets video files.

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 installation prerequisites but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention video_transcript for video files, nor does it specify what formats are supported or any conditions that would make this tool inappropriate. The only context is the tool name and purpose, which is implied rather than explicit.

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