generate_subtitles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses that two files are saved when both native and translation are requested and mentions input format support ('.3gp and .ts'). However, it omits other behavioral details like whether existing files are overwritten, what the tool actually returns, or background-mode limitations, leaving 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 six sentences long, front-loaded with a clear purpose, and uses selective examples. It avoids fluff but could be tightened without losing scope. Each sentence adds operational value.

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 tool's 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should clearly explain what the tool returns (e.g., saved file paths) and any critical behavior like overwriting. It does neither. It also doesn't mention background mode viability, leaving the agent without enough context to predict outcomes.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats a few parameter highlights (language='auto', translate_to_english=true) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's already detailed parameter descriptions. It contributes only playback-format context, not parameter semantics.

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 opens with 'Generate subtitle files for an audio or video file using whisper.cpp', clearly stating a specific verb, resource, and tool. It further details output formats (SRT/VTT) and translation capability, distinguishing it from siblings like transcribe_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 gives concrete usage tips: setting language='auto', enabling translate_to_english, and choosing SRT vs VTT based on playback context. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives such as transcribe_audio, leaving selection criteria implied rather than stated.

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