로컬 음성 인식(ASR) 설치 상태

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

The annotations already declare that this is a read-only, non-open-world operation, so the description doesn't need to restate that safety profile. It does add real behavioral context: turning on verify triggers a sha256 check that reads several GB and takes a few seconds, and that check is skipped while an install is running. The description does not disclose anything about the output, but an output schema exists.

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 takes two sentences. The first one front-loads what the tool reports, and the second one covers the costly verify option and its edge cases. There is no filler.

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?

For a one-parameter, zero-required, read-only status tool that also has an output schema, the description covers the component list, the job-progress dimensions, and the cost plus skip behavior of verify. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the verify parameter is already documented as a sha256 comparison against fixed values. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by quantifying the cost (several GB read, a few seconds) and describing the conditional skip during installation, which is behavior the schema alone cannot convey.

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 states a specific verb (shows/exposes) and enumerates the resources: ffmpeg, qwen_asr, model, GPU venv, plus the progress and errors of the current or last asr_install job. That makes the tool distinguishable from asr_install/asr_remove by implication, but it never names a sibling or explicitly frames itself as the read-only status counterpart.

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 its usage context, checking status and install progress, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it doesn't mention alternatives such as asr_install or transcribe_status. The agent must infer the routing from the tool name and component list alone.

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