Transcribe Segments

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

Usefully discloses behavior the annotations do not: it never raises, every failure returns {available: False, error: ...}, and it follows a 'never fabricate' sidecar-delegate contract. That is real error-model context. It stops short of explaining permission requirements, idempotency implications (annotations say idempotentHint=false), or cost/latency of Whisper calls.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and kept to two sentences, with the failure contract placed after the core purpose. Dense backtick/RST-style formatting ('AudioSegment-shaped', double backticks) slightly reduces readability but nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, yet it still names the segment fields and, more importantly, the failure envelope. For a single-parameter, non-destructive transcribe call this is close to sufficient; only sibling differentiation and invocation prerequisites are missing.

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 100% and the single params_json field already enumerates digest, media_type, artifact_b64, language, task, word_timestamps. The description's mention of 'verify the digest' hints at the digest parameter's role but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Transcribe segments') and names the underlying delegate ('transcribe_media'), plus the concrete output shape (start_ms/end_ms/text). It does not, however, distinguish this from close siblings like transcribe_audio, audio_transcriber_transcribe, or audio_ingest_transcription.

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?

There is no statement of when to prefer this over the many sibling transcription tools, nor any exclusion or prerequisite guidance beyond 'verify the digest'. The agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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