asr

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the core conversion without disclosing supported audio formats, language restrictions, output structure, or any failure/limit behavior. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, containing only essential information in eight words. It avoids redundancy and the title is null, so there is no wasted content.

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?

The tool is low-complexity with one parameter and no output schema, and the description plus schema are adequate for basic selection and invocation. However, there are notable gaps: no mention of accepted audio formats, response format beyond 'text', or any operational details, making it merely adequate.

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 input schema documents the single 'content' parameter as 'url or absolute path of the audio file to transcribe' with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 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 'Converts audio to text' clearly identifies the tool's function and resource, and the name 'asr' expands to Automatic Speech Recognition. It distinguishes from the sibling 'tts' by being the speech-to-text direction, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 implies usage when transcription is needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention the sibling 'tts' as an alternative. This is acceptable but not clearly stated.

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