voicebox_transcribe

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the transcription model and parameter exclusivity. No details on synchronous/asynchronous behavior, file size limits, supported audio formats, or output structure. The output schema exists but is not described in the text.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second gives crucial usage instruction. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 description is brief but covers the primary usage. The presence of an output schema (though not detailed) reduces the need to explain return values. It lacks guidance on optional parameters (model, language) but those are documented in the schema.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of audio_path and audio_base64, which is not stated in the schema. This helps the agent avoid errors.

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 transcribes audio to text using Whisper STT, with specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like voicebox_generate (generates new audio) and voicebox_retranscribe_capture (re-transcribes a capture).

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 explicitly instructs to 'pass exactly one of audio_path or audio_base64', providing clear parameter usage. However, it doesn't mention when to use this tool vs voicebox_retranscribe_capture for re-transcribing existing captures, which is a sibling.

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