transcribe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses security-related behavior (path rejection over HTTP), constraints (50 MB limit, accepted formats), and the return shape ({ text }). It doesn't cover auth or rate limits, but the key behaviors are well explained.

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, dense paragraph. It front-loads the purpose, then covers transport, limits, and return. There is no fluff, though it could be more structured with bullets, but it's concise and informative.

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 4 parameters with no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It explains the main operation, parameter selection, constraints, and return format, leaving few unanswered questions.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing the transport-specific behavior of `path` and `content_base64`, and clarifies `filename` is required with `content_base64`, complementing the schema descriptions.

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 function: 'Transcribe an audio file to text via syntx.ai (POST /api/v1/audio/transcribe).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes from siblings like generate-audio.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it directs using `path` for stdio and `content_base64` for HTTP, warns that `path` is rejected over HTTP, and specifies size and format limits. This effectively tells when and how to use the tool.

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