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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool's purpose (checking backend availability) and suggests it's a verification step, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or what 'available and configured' entails. The description adds basic context but lacks operational details.

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 highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the purpose and follow with clear usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or filler.

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 (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, which is sufficient for a no-parameter verification tool. However, it could be more complete by hinting at what the output contains (e.g., list of backends, status) despite the output schema existing.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it appropriately focuses on tool purpose and usage. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't attempt to explain nonexistent parameters.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('check which transcription backends are available and configured') and distinguishes it from siblings like transcribe_audio or list_models by focusing on backend availability verification rather than transcription or model listing.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call this first to verify your setup before transcribing.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (as an initial setup check) versus when to use sibling tools like transcribe_audio (for actual transcription).

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

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 lists models with performance characteristics, which implies read-only behavior, and mentions environment variable configuration context. However, it doesn't detail behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. It adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by two sentences providing useful context. There's minimal waste, though the second sentence about environment variable configuration could be more tightly integrated. Overall, it's efficient and well-structured.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and provides context about model configuration. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could better address usage scenarios or integration with sibling tools to be fully complete.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and context. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools, as it adds value without redundant information.

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's purpose: 'List available Whisper model sizes with performance characteristics.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('Whisper model sizes'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_backends' or 'transcribe_audio'. The purpose is specific but lacks sibling comparison.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions configuring the active model via an environment variable and the default, but doesn't explain when an agent should call list_models (e.g., before transcription to choose a model, for system setup, etc.) or how it relates to sibling tools like transcribe_audio. No explicit when/when-not or alternatives are provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels by detailing multiple behavioral aspects: it lists TTS backends with priority order, cost implications (OpenAI TTS pricing), platform dependencies (macOS fallback), configuration via environment variables, and return format specifics. This goes well beyond basic function description.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, use case, backends, configuration, args, returns) and efficiently conveys essential information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating some details (e.g., backend priorities) more tightly, but overall it's front-loaded and wastes no sentences.

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, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral details, parameter semantics, and return values, making the output schema redundant for understanding. No gaps remain given the complexity.

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 explaining all three parameters: 'text' (text to synthesise), 'voice' (with specific voice names for each backend and default configuration), and 'output_path' (optional absolute path). It adds crucial context like default values and backend-specific options not in the schema.

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's purpose: 'Convert text to speech and return an OGG/Opus audio file path.' It specifies the exact action (convert text to speech), output format (OGG/Opus audio file), and distinguishes it from siblings like transcription tools by focusing on speech synthesis rather than recognition.

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 for when to use this tool (for text-to-speech conversion) and mentions a practical use case ('Plays as a native voice note in Telegram when sent as an attachment'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'check_backends' or 'list_models', nor does it specify when not to use it (e.g., vs. transcription tools).

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

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.

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 key behaviors: downloading from Telegram, transcribing, and deleting temp files. However, it does not cover aspects like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs beyond the bot token fallback.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second details the process, and the parameter/return sections are clear and necessary. No wasted words.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, process, parameters, and return reference. However, it lacks details on error cases or performance expectations, which could be useful for a tool involving external services.

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. It adds meaningful semantics for all parameters: 'file_id' is explained as from a Telegram Message object, 'bot_token' has a fallback, 'language' specifies auto-detect behavior, and 'word_timestamps' clarifies its effect. This goes beyond the basic schema titles.

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: 'Download and transcribe a Telegram voice message.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'transcribe_audio' by specifying the Telegram source and mentions the cleanup step of deleting temp files, which adds unique context.

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 Telegram voice messages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'transcribe_audio'. It mentions the fallback to an environment variable for the bot token, which provides some context, but lacks clear guidance on prerequisites or comparisons with siblings.

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