transcribe_audio

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavior: it reads files directly from the machine, preserves Arabic text without translation unless requested, and enforces a single audio source constraint. This enriched context goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 at four sentences, immediately front-loads the core purpose, and each sentence adds a distinct piece of value: purpose, language handling, local file access, and input constraint. No wasted words.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated) and strong per-parameter schema descriptions. The description provides a complete picture: what it does, how to invoke it (local path), which inputs to provide, and a notable edge case (Arabic). Combined with annotations, it is fully sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of the 7 parameters, including details about model choices, prompt behavior, base64 limitations, and file_path being the normal approach. The description reinforces the file_path strategy ('no uploading, copying, or encoding') but does not significantly add meaning beyond the schema. Thus, the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Transcribe ONE audio file and return its text.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and even distinguishes it from batch transcription via the emphatic 'ONE'. With no sibling tools, no differentiation is required, making this a fully clear purpose.

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 useful usage context: it explains the tool reads directly from the local machine ('no uploading, copying, or encoding'), emphasizes passing exactly one audio source, and mentions Arabic-language handling. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but with no alternatives listed, the exclusionary guidance is less critical; the provided usage guidance is strong.

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