recognize_speech

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It mentions input and output but omits any details on error handling, limitations, async behavior, or side effects.

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 exceptionally concise, comprising two short sentences that front-load the core function and then describe the input/output. There is no redundant or extraneous 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?

While the description states the return type (text transcription) and input format, it lacks broader context such as whether the operation is synchronous, any file size constraints, or integration with other SaluteSpeech features. Given the simple nature of the tool, this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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?

All parameters have some description in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The descriptions are brief but adequate for basic understanding, though they add little beyond the schema itself (e.g., no explanation of allowed language formats beyond examples).

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 performs speech recognition via SaluteSpeech and accepts Base64 audio to return text. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'recognize_file', but the mention of Base64 audio provides some distinction.

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_file or synthesize_speech. The description lacks any decision criteria or contextual triggers.

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