get_transcriber_config

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb '查看' (view) implies a read-only operation, and it mentions checking model readiness, but it does not explicitly state that no configuration is modified, nor does it describe network dependencies or output format. The description adds some transparency by indicating the scope (current config and readiness) but lacks explicit side-effect information.

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 a single, tightly packed sentence that conveys the essential function and the set of transcribing engines covered. It is front-loaded with the main action ('查看') and avoids any unnecessary details, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It sufficiently describes the resource (transcriber config) and the additional aspect of model readiness. It does not explain return values, but the output schema fulfills that role, so the description meets the contextual needs for a simple getter.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, making parameter semantics non-applicable. The description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose without needing to explain parameter details. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets that baseline by being clear and not requiring parameter compensation.

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 tool's function: viewing the current transcriber engine configuration and model readiness status. It names specific engines (fast-whisper, groq, bcut, kuaishou, mlx-whisper) and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_task_status and list_providers by focusing on current configuration rather than tasks or provider lists.

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 implies a read-only operational context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_transcriber or list_transcriber_models. No exclusions or alternative naming are provided, leaving usage to be inferred from the tool's nature rather than being explicitly guided.

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