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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the rest: it discloses the default search set (Downloads, Videos, Desktop, Music, Documents), the two-level depth limit, the newest-first ordering, and that folder overrides the defaults. It omits the default result cap (limit=15) and what happens on an empty result.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the selection rule. No filler and every clause carries 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and safety is covered by annotations. The description supplies scope, depth, ordering, and usage context; only the limit parameter and empty-result behavior are left unaddressed.

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% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains folder's override behavior well and the "names a file" phrasing implies name_contains, but limit (default 15, and any upper bound) is never explained in either place.

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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (audio/video files) plus the machine scope and sort order, which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like transcribe, but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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?

"Use it when the user names a file without a full path" gives a concrete triggering condition. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and open-world nature are covered. The description adds useful context that the result includes the automatically chosen device, but says nothing about ordering, stability, or what happens when no GPU is usable, which a discovery tool with no output schema would benefit from.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding and the key qualifier ('babelscribe picks automatically') up front. It loses a point only because the sentence is an ungrammatical fragment that takes a second pass to parse.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description should carry the full burden of describing what comes back. It hints at the content (list of GPUs plus the auto-selected one) but does not specify the return shape, device naming, or the empty/no-GPU case, leaving a real gap for a tool whose only purpose is discovery.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies.

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 names the resource (GPUs usable by whisper.cpp on this machine) and adds a distinguishing detail about automatic selection, but it is a noun-phrase fragment with no explicit verb and largely restates the title 'List GPUs'. An agent can infer it is a listing/discovery tool, but the purpose is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus siblings like list_languages_and_models, nor any note on whether it should be checked before transcribe to confirm hardware support. Usage is left entirely to inference from the name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that - no indication of return format, cost, or whether the listing is static or environment-dependent, despite the openWorldHint=false implying a fixed local catalog.

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?

A single short fragment with no wasted words, and the key information (models + per-language --accurate mapping) is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of being a label rather than a sentence, which slightly limits clarity.

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 zero-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description conveys what kind of data comes back but not its shape (e.g., list vs. language-keyed map) or how it relates to other tools. Adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the return structure.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The schema is trivially complete and the description correctly implies the output is a static mapping rather than something parameterized.

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 names the resource (available models) and adds a specific mapping detail ('which model --accurate uses per language'), which helps distinguish it from siblings like transcribe. However, it is a noun fragment with no verb, so the agent must infer that the tool lists/enumerates rather than computes or modifies anything.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this tool or what it replaces. The reference to the '--accurate' flag hints at a pre-transcription lookup use case, but the agent must infer that this is a discovery step before calling transcribe, and there are no exclusions or alternatives named.

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

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

Annotations declare non-readonly, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world, so the safety profile is partially covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that output files are written, where they land ('empty = next to the media file'), the accurate-mode performance cost, and what is returned. It stops short of covering failure modes or overwrite behavior on re-runs.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by terse per-parameter lines and a return summary; every sentence adds information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return payload (files written, detected language, device, transcript text), and all five parameters are explained. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly appears to be 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so for all five parameters: path form and accepted containers, ISO language codes plus 'auto', the accuracy/speed tradeoff, the valid format set (srt, vtt, txt, json) which is not enumerated in the schema, and the output_dir default behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Transcribe a local audio or video file into subtitles / text') and names the output artifacts, which clearly separates it from siblings like find_media and list_devices. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the emphasis on a 'local' file with an 'absolute path' hints this is not for discovery (find_media) and the accurate-mode tradeoff ('slower, fewest errors') is a useful when-to-pick hint. However, no alternative tools are named and there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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