whisper_server

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses critical behavioral traits: the model stays resident in VRAM for the server's lifetime, the server is bound to localhost only, and certain operations are refused while running to avoid GPU contention. This is transparent about resource consumption and operational constraints.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds necessary context (performance benefit, VRAM warning, refusal list, localhost binding). It is rich but not bloated, and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 description is complete for a server lifecycle tool of this complexity. It covers the action, why to use it, the GPU resource implication, restrictions on concurrent operations, and the network binding. No output schema exists, but the status action details are in the schema, and the description fills remaining gaps.

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 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for each action enum value. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema; it focuses on the server's behavior and side effects. Per the high schema coverage baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Start, stop, or check the persistent whisper model server.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like transcribe_audio and switch_model.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided on when to use the server: it eliminates per-file model-load cost, making it a speedup for many short files. It also tells when NOT to use it: 'stop the server to use' the refused operations like start_batch and generate_subtitles, and warns to start deliberately and stop to free GPU.

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