transcribe_audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'local' and 'Intel NPU' which are valuable constraints, but does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or limitations like supported audio formats.

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 entire description is a single sentence with 8 words, focusing directly on the action. There is no redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description covers the essentials. It lacks details on file formats or hardware requirements beyond the NPU, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably 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 schema provides only the parameter name 'Audio Path' with no description. The description clarifies that the parameter is the path to a local audio file, adding meaning about its nature and locality.

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 uses a specific verb 'Transcribe' and identifies the resource as 'a local audio file', distinguishing it from siblings like 'record_and_transcribe' which implies recording first. The hardware detail 'on the Intel NPU' also adds specificity.

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 the tool is for existing local files, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling 'record_and_transcribe' suggests a related but different workflow, but no comparison is made.

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