mm_transcribe_audio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it requires a local absolute path (not a URL), supports specific formats, defaults language auto-detection, and returns a Markdown structure with language, full text, and segments. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact and well-structured. The purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by concise Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value—no filler, no repetition of the tool name or title.

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 essential aspects for a transcription tool: input format, supported extensions, optional language parameter, and return format. Combined with annotations (read-only, idempotent) and the low parameter count, the description is complete and leaves no major gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates. It explains audio_path requires an absolute local path and lists supported formats. It explains language is optional ISO 639-1 (e.g., zh, en) and defaults to auto-detection. Every parameter is meaningfully described beyond the raw 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 opens with '转写本地音频为文字' (transcribe local audio to text), a specific verb+resource statement. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like mm_synthesize_speech (speech generation) and mm_analyze_video (video analysis), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 usage context by specifying 'local audio' and listing supported formats (MP3/WAV/M4A/FLAC/OGG). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the sibling list shows no overlap, so clear context suffices. A stronger statement like 'use this instead of mm_synthesize_speech when transcribing' would earn a 5.

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