transcribe_file

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds valuable context: it polls until completion (blocking call) and explicitly states the file path is never sent to telemetry. This goes beyond the annotations, though it could mention other side effects like network usage.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover the action, scope, and key behavioral traits (privacy, polling). Every word adds value with no fluff.

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?

While the description covers the main purpose and blocking behavior, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., transcript text, object). Since there is no output schema, the agent lacks information about the function's output format, making it incomplete for confident invocation.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds no additional information about parameters beyond what is already in the schema, so it meets the baseline 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 the tool transcribes local audio or video files, which distinguishes it from siblings like transcribe_url (for remote URLs) and batch variants. The polling behavior is also mentioned, providing a complete picture of the tool's function.

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 use for local files via the word 'local', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. There is no mention of when not to use it or reference to sibling tools.

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