transcribe_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so by stating that only a specific WAV encoding is accepted and by offering a concrete workaround. It also indicates the output is text and implies an external STT dependency. It does not discuss latency or failure behavior, but transcription is an expected, non-mutating operation.

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 two sentences with no wasted words: the first states the action and required format, the second provides a practical command to prepare files. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 three-parameter transcription tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the input constraints, the conversion path, and the expected result ('to text'). Billing and language details are left to the schema, which already documents them well.

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 100%, so the schema already documents path, minutes, and language. The description adds value beyond the schema with the ffmpeg conversion command and reinforces the exact WAV requirements for the path parameter, helping an agent prepare a valid input.

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 states a specific verb ('Transcribe'), a resource ('WAV audio file'), and the service ('dTelecom STT'). This clearly distinguishes it from the siblings stt_pricing and stt_health, so an agent can tell at a glance what the tool does.

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?

It clearly specifies the required input format (PCM16, 16kHz, mono) and even provides the exact ffmpeg command to convert an unsupported file to a valid input. It does not explicitly contrast with the siblings, but those are pricing and health endpoints, so the transcription use case is unambiguous.

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