record_and_transcribe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the duration range and NPU-based processing, but it does not describe output format, error handling, microphone permissions, or whether the recording is saved. These are notable gaps for a recording tool.

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 a single, clear sentence that conveys the tool's purpose, duration limit, and hardware context without redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 presence of an output schema and only one simple parameter, the description covers the core functionality and duration range. Minor gaps exist in usage guidance, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 a single undocumented parameter 'seconds' with a default of 10. The description adds crucial semantics by specifying the allowed range of 1-60 seconds, which is not present in the schema. This directly clarifies parameter meaning and constraints.

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 records from the default microphone for 1-60 seconds and transcribes on the NPU. It uses specific verbs ('record', 'transcribe') and identifies the resource ('default microphone'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'transcribe_audio' (which only transcribes) and 'npu_status' (which checks hardware).

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is for recording and transcribing audio in one step. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this vs. alternatives like 'transcribe_audio' for existing audio files, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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