generate_srt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state the primary side effect (writing an .srt file) and default output location, but it omits other important behaviors: whether existing files are overwritten, whether models are downloaded over the network, runtime expectations, dependencies like ffmpeg, and what the tool returns (if anything). These are significant gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 compact and well-structured: a single-sentence summary followed by a tight Args list. Every line provides useful information, and the main purpose is front-loaded. There is 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?

All parameters are documented, the primary output (the .srt file) and its location are stated, and defaults are clear. Minor gaps remain: no mention of return value, overwrite behavior, or runtime prerequisites, but for a straightforward file-generation tool these are relatively minor. The absence of usage guidance relative to siblings is not critical for invoking the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section fully compensates. It explains each of the four parameters in plain language, lists allowed values for model_size and device, and clarifies the default behavior of output_path. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare input schema.

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 opens with a specific action and result: 'Transcribe a file and write an .srt subtitle file next to it.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and the resource it produces. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the .srt output distinguishes it from transcribe and burn_captions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use generate_srt instead of the sibling tools transcribe or burn_captions. The only context is implied by the description itself: if an .srt file is needed, this tool does that. No explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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