mistral_transcribe

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (non-read) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by noting the dependency on the session language and the scope ('all audio files'), but does not disclose further behavioral details like whether the operation overwrites existing transcripts or if it is asynchronous. This is adequate given the annotations, but not rich.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place, including the language prerequisite note.

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 3-parameter tool with a robust schema and an output schema, the description provides the essential context: what it does and the language dependency. It does not mention that the transcript can be read later via mistral_read_staging_transcript, but that is inferable from sibling tool names. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 100%, so each parameter (session_id, diarize, timestamp_granularity) is already well documented. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific semantics, but the baseline is 3 because the schema carries the load.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Transcribe') and resource ('all audio files in a staging session'), making it distinct from sibling tools like mistral_read_staging_transcript (which reads transcripts) and mistral_finalize (which finalizes). The verb+resource+scope structure is immediately clear.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: you transcribe audio files in a staging session, and the session language (set via mistral_set_language) affects the output. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough to guide selection among siblings.

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