transcribe_audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool initiates an async job, returns a job ID, and runs with a 3x time multiplier and single-job concurrency. These details go beyond the minimal, though it does not specify what happens when a job is already running (error vs. queue) or authorization requirements beyond the optional API key.

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 three sentences long, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second explains the return value and how to use it with a companion tool, and the third provides timing and concurrency constraints. There is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 that an output schema exists and the tool is relatively simple, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, return type, timing, and concurrency. However, it lacks details on error handling when a job is already running and does not mention any input format restrictions. Still, it is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so both parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameters; it merely mentions 'song' while the schema says 'audio'. Hence, the description adds no extra value beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 what the tool does: 'Start transcribing a song into a multi-track MIDI file.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. Although it mentions 'song' while the schema says 'audio', the purpose is unambiguous and no sibling tools exist to confuse.

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 context on when to use the tool by stating the asynchronous nature ('Returns a job id to poll'), the approximate runtime ('three times the length of the song'), and concurrency limit ('one job runs at a time'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives since no sibling tools exist, but the guidance is clear and useful.

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