transcribe_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real constraints: a 100 MB / 60 minute ceiling and the fact that output_path writes a file to disk as a side effect. It omits failure behavior, runtime/latency for long files, and whether processing happens locally or remotely.

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 core action and scope are front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact args block where every line adds information. No filler or repetition of schema types.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all four parameters are substantively covered. Gaps are behavioral rather than structural: no indication of expected latency, error handling, or whether the transcript is also returned when output_path is set.

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, and it does: path is described as an absolute path on this computer with size/duration limits, format explains what each enum value returns (utterances and word timestamps in json, subtitle timing in srt/vtt), include_words notes its restriction to text/json, and output_path gives a concrete example.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Transcribe a local audio file ... to text') with supported formats enumerated. The word 'local' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling transcribe_url, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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 explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no prerequisites (auth, model, language handling) are given. The 'local file' framing vs. the transcribe_url sibling only implies the selection rule rather than stating it.

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