Transcribe Audio/Video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose what happens to uploaded files, privacy implications, rate limits, or error behaviors (e.g., unsupported formats). The mention of 'using Gemini' implies cloud processing but lacks specifics.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every phrase adds value: 'using Gemini' signals the engine, 'Optional timestamps...' summarizes key params. No filler or redundancy.

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 (9 params, no required, output schema exists), the description covers key options and input methods. It could mention file size limits or performance notes, but is otherwise sufficient for standard transcription tasks.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level summary of optional features (timestamps, diarization, language hint) and input methods, but does not provide semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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 'Transcribe speech from an audio or video file to text using Gemini.' It specifies the action (transcribe), resource (audio/video file), and model (Gemini), making the purpose immediately clear. No sibling tool does transcription, so differentiation is implicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites, file size limits, or alternative tools (e.g., gemini_agent for custom prompts). The agent would lack context for tool selection.

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