MCP Server Whisper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions capabilities like regex pattern matching and metadata filtering, but doesn't address critical behavioral aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts with large datasets, error handling for invalid paths, or the format of returned data. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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, with a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and key features. Every word earns its place, avoiding redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is partially complete. It covers basic functionality but lacks depth for a tool with extensive filtering options. The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but without annotations, more behavioral context (e.g., safety, performance) would improve completeness for agent use.

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 description adds some semantic context by mentioning 'regex pattern matching, filtering by metadata (size, duration, date, format), and sorting,' which maps to parameters like 'pattern', 'min_size_bytes', 'sort_by', etc. However, with 0% schema description coverage and 10 parameters, it doesn't fully compensate—it lacks details on parameter interactions, default behaviors, or units (e.g., 'min_modified_time' as a number without specifying format).

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, filter, and sort audio files from the audio path.' It specifies the verb ('list, filter, and sort'), resource ('audio files'), and scope ('from the audio path'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_latest_audio' or 'create_audio', which prevents a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_latest_audio' for retrieving specific files or 'create_audio' for adding new files. There's no context about prerequisites, such as whether files must exist in the audio path, or exclusions for when other tools might be more appropriate.

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