transcribe_folder

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds a genuine behavioral detail about keeping a managed server running across files when manage-server and keep-server are set, but it omits other relevant side effects such as output file writing, model downloads, or runtime expectations. The CLI-style flag names also do not match the schema parameter names.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds a meaningful behavioral caveat. There is no filler, redundancy, or restatement of schema details.

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 14-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, a two-sentence description is far from sufficient. It never explains supported media formats, the required folder_path, output behavior, or server/model prerequisites.

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%, and the description only gestures at two boolean parameters using CLI-style names. It adds no semantics for the required folder_path or for the many model, output, and server-related parameters, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb (batch-transcribe) and a specific resource (all supported media files in a folder), which clearly distinguishes this folder-level tool from single-file siblings like transcribe_audio 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 phrase 'Batch-transcribe all supported media files in a folder' provides clear usage context for folder-level batch jobs and implies it is not for single-file transcription. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions.

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