Speech To Text

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the local file requirement, size/time limits and timeout risk, the return format (plain transcript vs. verbose JSON with per-segment timings), and explicitly states 'Writes nothing to disk'—a critical side-effect disclosure.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the core purpose and key constraints. The statement about text_to_speech is placed early and each remaining sentence covers a distinct necessity without redundancy.

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 tool with only three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential calling information: file existence and size/time limits, output behavior, and side effects. Nothing critical 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter (file path, verbose, language). The description adds slight extra context (verbose returns per-segment timings) but doesn't meaningfully enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Transcribe') with a clear resource ('a local audio file') and explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool ('text_to_speech does the opposite'). This makes the tool's distinct role unmistakable.

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?

It provides explicit conditions for use: the file must exist on this machine, be under 25MB and ~2 minutes, or the request times out. It also names the alternative (text_to_speech) for the opposite operation, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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