parse_audio_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one useful behavior: it parses files rather than doing STT. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what errors can occur, or how the output is structured, though the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then lists the supported formats and the key alternative, making it immediately scannable for an AI agent.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and accepted input formats. It leaves some gaps, such as what happens with unsupported files and any side effects, but the simplicity of the tool and the existing output schema keep it reasonably complete.

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?

The schema has only a bare 'file_path' property with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It partially does by indicating the accepted file extensions and the general purpose of the file. However, it does not explicitly state that 'file_path' must point to a file with one of these formats or describe any constraints such as file size or encoding.

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 names a specific verb ('parse') and resource ('a script file'), and lists the supported formats. It also distances itself from STT, which helps distinguish it from transcription tools. However, it does not clearly differentiate itself from the sibling 'parse_subtitle', especially since .srt and .itt are subtitle formats.

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 phrase 'instead of STT' explicitly signals when to use this tool: when a script file is available rather than performing speech-to-text. It implies the alternative of transcription, but it does not spell out when not to use the tool or how it relates to sibling 'parse_subtitle'.

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