transcribe_audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's core functionality, supported formats, and return structure. It mentions the backend ('Whisper') and outlines the return dictionary fields, which adds valuable context beyond basic operation. However, it doesn't cover potential limitations like file size constraints, processing time, or error conditions beyond the 'error' field.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, format support list, parameter explanations, and return value documentation—all in minimal sentences. Each section adds value without redundancy, and information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema, the description provides complete context. It explains what the tool does, parameter meanings, return structure, and supported formats. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return value types, and it adequately covers the tool's scope and usage.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantic explanations for all three parameters: 'file_path' (absolute path), 'language' (ISO-639-1 code with auto-detect default), and 'word_timestamps' (boolean for segment inclusion). Each parameter's purpose and format are clearly documented beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 specific action ('Transcribe an audio file to text') and technology used ('using Whisper'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'speak_text' (text-to-speech) and 'transcribe_telegram_voice' (specific format). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 about supported audio formats (OGG, WAV, MP3, FLAC) and mentions 'most common audio formats,' which helps determine when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast when to use this versus the sibling 'transcribe_telegram_voice' tool or provide exclusion criteria.

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