transcriber_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'Does NOT load the model,' which is a key side-effect disclosure, and frames the operation as reporting rather than mutating. This is solid transparency for a status tool, though it does not discuss every possible runtime interaction such as CUDA initialization.

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 tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose, lists the reported fields compactly, and finishes with the important 'does not load the model' caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter status-check tool, this description is complete: it states what is reported, affirms no model loading, and an output schema exists to cover return shape. Nothing an agent needs to safely invoke this tool is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already documents this completely at 100% coverage. With no parameters, the description cannot add parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Report Whisper runtime readiness.' It then enumerates the exact reported items (model, device, checkpoint cache state, ffmpeg availability), which makes the tool's scope unmistakable and clearly distinct from transcription siblings like transcribe_file and transcribe_video.

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 purpose implies a preflight check before Whisper transcription, especially given transcription siblings exist. However, the description never explicitly states 'use this before transcribing' or names alternatives, so the usage guidance is only implicit.

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