Metis · Meeting Memory — Transcribe Recording

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses key behaviors: uses Whisper, optional speaker diarization conditional on dependencies, saves transcript alongside audio, updates meetings table, and returns transcript text and file path. This covers side effects and conditional behavior well.

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 brief but complete, using two paragraphs to state the core function and then document parameters and return values. It is efficiently structured without superfluous information, earning a strong score.

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 (1 parameter, output schema present), the description covers the main functional aspects, optional features, and return structure. Minor omissions like error handling or diarization availability check are acceptable for this complexity level.

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 0%, so the description's explanation of the sole parameter 'recording_id' as 'The meeting_id from the meetings table (shown in Meetings tab)' adds essential context beyond the schema's bare 'Recording Id' title, helping the agent know how to obtain the correct value.

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 the tool transcribes a meeting recording using Whisper, which is a specific verb-resource pair. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'transcribe_voice', the mention of 'meeting recording' and 'meeting_id' makes its purpose distinct enough.

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 implies usage for transcribing meeting recordings with an optional diarization feature, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. The context is clear but exclusions are missing.

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