transcribe_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: language auto-detection, diarization option, and specialization in Spanish/Portuguese real-world audio. It does not mention output format or potential limitations, but for a transcription tool these are largely implied. It is honest and adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 sentences with no waste. The main action is front-loaded, supported formats are listed, language handling and diarize are explained efficiently. Every clause 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?

For a 5-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and the two most important behavioral options (language auto-detect and diarization). It does not explicitly state the return value (transcription text), but that is heavily implied by the tool name and action. Minor gaps like file size limits or error handling are not critical for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value for language (auto-detect when omitted) and diarize (speaker-labeled turns), which enriches understanding beyond the schema. It doesn't elaborate on prompt or num_speakers, but the schema already covers them adequately. The extra context justifies a 4.

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 states a specific action (transcribe) and resource (local audio file), lists supported formats, and clearly differentiates from the sibling transcribe_url by emphasizing 'local'. It is unambiguous and specific.

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 provides clear context: it is for local files, handles Spanish/Portuguese well, and language auto-detects when omitted. It gives usage tips like setting diarize=true, but does not explicitly name the alternative for remote files (transcribe_url) or state when not to use this tool. The 'local' qualifier strongly implies the URL tool, so it's close but not fully explicit.

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