transcribe_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: auto language routing, explicit english/chinese profiles, and the ability to start a managed server on demand. But it omits important side effects such as output writing, model downloading behavior, and server lifecycle when manage_server is enabled.

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 front-loaded, with no filler. Each sentence adds useful information about the tool's scope or modes.

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 tool with 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It fails to explain return formats, output location, model download behavior, or the relationship between server_url and a managed server, all of which an agent would need to invoke 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%, so the description must compensate for 14 undocumented parameters. It only touches on a few concepts: lid_model via '--lid-model', profile via 'english / chinese profiles', and manage_server via 'start a managed server on demand'. Most parameters (response_format, out_dir, models_dir, allow_model_auto_download, server_url, keep_server, etc.) are left unexplained.

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 states a clear verb ('Transcribe') and a specific resource ('a local audio file through a CrispASR server'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like transcribe_video and transcribe_folder, which target different inputs.

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 useful selection context: use auto language routing under one condition, explicit profiles under another, and optionally start a managed server. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with transcribe_video or transcribe_folder, leaving some routing to inference.

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