recognize_file

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

The description mentions auto-detection of format from extension, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, error behavior, output format, or permission requirements. Since annotations are missing, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the basic function but omits important context such as return format, error handling, or usage restrictions.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the two parameters.

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 recognizes speech from a local audio file, with auto-detection of format from extension. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'recognize_speech', which could cause ambiguity.

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 versus alternatives like 'recognize_speech'. The description lacks context on prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate use cases.

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