Transcribe a recording

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the local processing behavior ('stays on this machine'), the limitation that a mixed track cannot be split by speaker, and the resulting omission of speaker labels. It could add more details about output handling, but the key behaviors are transparent.

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, each adding significant value: purpose, privacy, and limitation with an alternative. It is concise and front-loaded with the main action.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, output format, privacy, and a key limitation. It could mention how the WebVTT file is delivered, but overall it is complete enough for a transcription tool with clear alternatives.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'single recording' which relates to file_path but doesn't add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a single audio/video recording to WebVTT using a local speech model. It distinguishes itself from the sibling transcribe_session by noting it omits speaker labels, so there's no confusion about its 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 explicitly advises when not to use this tool: for per-speaker scores, use transcribe_session with one file per participant. This provides clear guidance on the appropriate use case and alternative.

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