transcribe_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses first-use model loading/caching, side effects (writing .txt and optional .vtt), and the returned transcript. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the core behavior, then provide implementation behavior and the one non-obvious parameter. No filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers the primary use, but with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, it leaves want_vtt and return_segments semantically unexplained. The output schema covers return shape, so that part is fine, but the full invocation contract is not 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains language (ISO code, None auto-detects) and only obliquely references want_vtt via 'plus .vtt on request', but it never explains return_segments or path semantics. The defaults for want_vtt and return_segments are not surfaced.

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?

States a specific action ('Transcribe'), a resource ('local video/audio file'), and the model ('Whisper (turbo)'). The word 'local' distinguishes this from the sibling transcribe_video tool, so an agent can tell when this is the right entry point.

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 establishes clear context: this tool is for local files, as opposed to video_info/download_audio or transcribe_video. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the local-file constraint is enough for basic routing.

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