Transcription Engine Health

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: what is actually inspected (importable Whisper backends, ffmpeg on PATH, default model, transcription directory) and the explicit absence of model loading, which matters for cost/latency. It stops short of saying anything about failure modes, e.g. what is reported when ffmpeg is missing.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the key differentiator ('without loading a model') followed by the concrete list of what is inspected and a closing reassurance ('Changes nothing'). Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values or side effects. It covers what an agent needs to select and invoke this zero-argument diagnostic tool 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing the description could add or omit here.

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?

Specific verb (report) plus specific resource (the transcription engine's state), with an explicit qualifier 'without loading a model' that separates it from every transcribe_* sibling. An agent can distinguish it from transcribe_audio without consulting the schema.

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 'without loading a model' signals the cheap check-first use case versus the heavier transcription siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly and there is no explicit 'call this before X' instruction. Clear context, but alternatives are implied rather than spelled out.

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