audio_transcribe

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only mentions the core function and optional file output. It omits details on audio format constraints, language support, destructive potential, rate limits, or any side effects, which is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. While it earns its place by stating the primary action, it would benefit from splitting into a purpose statement and a brief usage note, especially given the tool's complexity.

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 the tool has 9 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema (not described), the description is vastly incomplete. It fails to describe output format, parameter interactions, or any contextual details needed for correct usage.

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% and the description provides no parameter-level information. It does not clarify the meaning or format of audio_ref, language, prompt, timestamps, or any of the 9 parameters, forcing the agent to rely solely on parameter names.

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's action: transcribe audio to text, with an optional file write. It uses a specific verb (Transcribe) and resource (audio), and implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like audio_analyze or audio_tts by describing a distinct 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like audio_analyze or image_extract. The description lacks exclusions, prerequisites, or context on typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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