nass_start_local_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the resource and YouTube bypass, but says nothing about whether this starts an asynchronous job, returns a job identifier, requires the file to already exist, or what happens on failure or missing file.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a short tool description, though the concision comes at the cost of missing details better placed in other dimensions.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits workflow context needed to chain with siblings like nass_job_status and nass_get_transcript, and does not explain the start operation's return behavior.

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 implies 'filename' is relative to NASS_MEDIA_DIR but never mentions the 'language' parameter or its default value 'ar', leaving one of two parameters completely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Transcribe') and resource ('media file inside configured NASS_MEDIA_DIR'), and distinguishes the local path from YouTube. It does not name a specific sibling alternative, but the purpose is clear and differentiated by resource.

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?

Implies usage for local files in NASS_MEDIA_DIR and explicitly says it bypasses YouTube, but it never names alternatives like nass_start_transcription or states when-not to use this tool. Usage context is present but only implied.

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