Metis · News Radar — Scan Inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses file movement to processed/, transcription method (faster-whisper), and handling of non-audio files (listed for manual review). It does not cover error handling or permissions, but covers key behavioral traits.

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 moderately concise, listing supported audio formats, processing steps, and parameter usage. It is well-structured with bullet-like lines and a clear separation of parameter description. Could be slightly shorter but still efficient.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no required fields, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It explains input, process, and output (ideas). Missing details about return format are covered by the output schema, so overall adequate.

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 adds full value. It explains the single parameter 'auto_transcribe_audio' in detail: default behavior (True) and effect when set to False (list only). This compensates completely for the schema lack.

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 a specific action ('scan the inbox/ folder and auto-transcribe any audio files to ideas'), identifying the resource (inbox) and the operation (transcribe). It includes supported audio formats and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scan_literature, scan_news, etc., by focusing on inbox processing.

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 explains what the tool does and when to use the parameter (auto-transcribe), but does not explicitly say when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings. It provides context but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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