transcribe

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

Adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the first call downloads a model (cost/latency, env var VOICE_COACH_WHISPER_MODEL), and output degradation policy (words dropped first, then segments, with everything preserved in full_details). Annotations already cover idempotency and safety, so this is a solid supplement; missing are rough latency/blocking expectations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by Args and Returns sections; every line carries information. The embedded docstring formatting (indentation, 'Args:') is slightly noisy but does not obscure content.

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?

Covers the critical operational facts an agent needs: parameter forms, auto-detection default, model download on first use, and truncation behavior that the output schema alone would not reveal. A note on supported audio formats or expected duration limits would close the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load and largely does: audio is either a path or a name from record_audio, and language accepts codes or names (en, en-US, Spanish) with auto-detect on omission. The exact accepted format set for language remains loose.

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 verb and resource ('Transcribes audio') plus differentiating scope details: timestamps, engine (faster-whisper), and local execution. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like assess_pronunciation or speech_metrics, which analyze rather than transcribe.

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 audio parameter note ('a name returned by record_audio') implies the natural pipeline with that sibling, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus speech_metrics or assess_pronunciation is given, and nothing says when to prefer this over another tool.

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