transcribe_audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses background subprocess execution, automatic result reporting, absence of polling, default timeout of 10 minutes, and the specific timeout handling (checking whether the task is still running or errored). This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose line, a usage note, a behavioral note, and a neatly formatted Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, preconditions (ask user), execution model, timeout behavior, and parameter semantics. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be detailed here.

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 0%, but the Args section thoroughly explains every parameter: audio_path (absolute path, supported formats), task_type (possible values and meanings), output_dir (default behavior), language (hint, auto-detect), and timeout (default in seconds). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 '将音频文件转写为文本' (transcribe audio files to text), clearly specifying the verb and resource. It also outlines the different output types (text, timestamps, srt), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the sibling correct_transcription.

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 provides clear guidance: ask the user for the transcription type if not specified, and notes that transcription runs in the background without polling. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, e.g., versus correct_transcription, so it falls short of a 5.

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