transcribe_local_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an order_id for later result checking, but lacks details on authentication, file size limits, supported formats, or error behavior (e.g., if file not in allowed dir).

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or filler text.

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 5 parameters and a sibling set with multiple transcription tools, the description is incomplete. It covers file_path and return value (order_id) but omits service, language, folder_id, and triggering_word. The output schema exists, so return value details are not needed, but parameter roles remain unclear.

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%, meaning the description adds no explanation for the 5 parameters (service, language, folder_id, triggering_word). Only file_path is implied. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's structure.

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 uploads and transcribes a local audio/video file, distinguishing it from siblings like transcribe_url. It also mentions a key constraint (file must be in TRANSKRIPTOR_ALLOWED_DIR) and the return of an order_id.

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 usage for local files but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as transcribe_url for remote files or transcribe_meeting. The prerequisite about ALLOWED_DIR is mentioned but not expanded into 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.