transcribe_message_voice

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the transcriber is user-configured and invoked via argv, which is useful. However, it omits side effects (e.g., allow_derived_write parameter suggests potential writes), error behavior, or any prerequisites like file availability.

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 sentence that immediately states the action, resource, and method. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to identify the voice file (local_id/server_id_str), the role of 'chat', or what 'allow_derived_write' means. The agent would struggle to correctly invoke the tool despite the output schema.

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%, and the description does not mention any parameter. The schema provides only titles and defaults, leaving 'chat', 'local_id', 'server_id_str', and 'allow_derived_write' ambiguous. This is a severe gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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: 'Transcribe a local voice file' using a specific method ('user-configured argv-only local transcriber'). It is unambiguous and distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on chat reading, search, and media handling.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever a local voice file needs transcription. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though siblings are unrelated and no alternative transcription tool exists. This provides clear context without explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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