transcribe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns JSON with text and, for videos, frame timestamps. It also clarifies the verbatim nature and lack of interpretation. It does not mention potential limitations like language support or file format restrictions, but the core behavior is well described.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's essential purpose and return format with no wasted words. It packs key details (verbatim, media types, no interpretation, JSON output with timestamps) efficiently.

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?

The tool has a moderate complexity with 2 parameters and no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does mention the JSON structure and frame timestamps. However, it could be slightly more complete with details like supported file formats or default behavior for max_frames, but it's largely sufficient.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage, with both parameters (media and max_frames) already described. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, only noting that videos get timestamps in the return JSON, which relates to max_frames but is not directly explained. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 performs verbatim transcription of text from images, documents, screenshots, and video subtitles. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'no summary, judgment, or interpretation', which sets it apart from describe_image and analyze_video.

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 provides clear context on what the tool does and implicitly indicates when to use it (extracting text verbatim) versus when not (when analysis or interpretation is needed). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like 'transcribe_audio' or 'describe_image', so it's clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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