diarize_speech

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it performs transcription with speaker diarization, saves output files (with default directory behavior), and makes external API calls with potential costs. It also specifies the return format ('TextContent with the diarized transcription and path to the output file'). The main gap is lack of information about error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, includes a critical warning prominently, then provides parameter documentation in a clear format. Every sentence earns its place - the warning is essential, and the parameter explanations are necessary given the 0% schema coverage. No wasted words.

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 complexity (5 parameters, external API calls, file operations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, critical warnings, parameter semantics, and return format. The main gaps are: no information about supported audio formats, no mention of processing time or limitations, and no explicit error scenarios. However, with output schema handling return values, this is reasonably comprehensive.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for all 5 parameters: explains what 'audio_file_path' is for, clarifies defaults for 'model_name' and 'output_directory', describes the purpose of 'max_speakers' and 'boosted_lm_words/score'. The description adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain parameter constraints (e.g., valid ranges for 'boosted_lm_score').

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 purpose: 'Convert speech to text with speaker diarization and save the output text file to a given directory.' This is specific (verb: convert and save, resource: speech/audio file) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'speech_to_text' (which likely lacks diarization) and 'list_asr_models' (which lists models rather than processing audio).

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 includes explicit usage guidance with the cost warning: '⚠️ COST WARNING: This tool makes an API call to Whissle which may incur costs. Only use when explicitly requested by the user.' This provides clear context about when to be cautious. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'speech_to_text' (e.g., when speaker identification is needed vs. simple transcription).

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