MCP Server Whisper

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool generates responses to audio inputs, mentions model performance characteristics, and implies conversational interaction. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what constitutes a valid audio file. The behavioral context is partial but not comprehensive.

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 with three sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second gives a model recommendation, and the third provides a warning. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by leading with the primary function more explicitly.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and model selection but misses parameter semantics and detailed behavioral context. The output schema likely handles return values, reducing the burden, but key usage aspects remain undocumented.

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 only mentions the model parameter with recommendations and warnings, ignoring input_file_name, system_prompt, and user_prompt. No guidance is provided on how these parameters interact or their expected formats. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare 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: 'chat with audio files' and specifies the response will be 'a response to the audio file sent.' It distinguishes from siblings like transcribe_audio or compress_audio by focusing on conversational interaction rather than transcription or format conversion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like create_audio or get_latest_audio.

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 guidance on model selection: 'recommended to use `gpt-4o-audio-preview` by default for best results' and warns about limitations of `gpt-4o-mini-audio-preview`. This helps the agent choose appropriate parameters. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like transcribe_audio for non-conversational needs or create_audio for generation.

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