download_transcriber_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the download runs in the background and directs users to list_transcriber_models for progress/status, which is valuable. Yet it does not mention behavior on repeated downloads, error handling, or any resource requirements, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 concise sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating what the tool does and where to check results. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The description covers the key context: when to use (local engine), the background execution, and how to query status. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. However, the lack of parameter details makes the overall picture incomplete for correct invocation, especially given the tool has a required parameter.

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 input schema has no descriptions and the description does not explain model_size or transcriber_type. The only hint is the tool name and the mention of 'whisper model', but the required parameter and its allowed values are undefined. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, giving the agent insufficient information to choose parameter values correctly.

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 the action (download) and resource (whisper model), and notes it runs in the background and is only needed for the local engine. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_transcriber_models and list_models by specifying its unique role.

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 explicitly says '仅本地引擎需要' (only for local engine), giving clear context for when to use it. It also refers to list_transcriber_models for querying status, which implies this tool is for initiating downloads rather than monitoring them. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for remote models.

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