transcribe_quick

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses synchronous behavior and lack of enhancement/diarization, but it does not mention potential side effects, file writes, permissions, or failure behavior. That leaves a meaningful transparency gap.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: what the tool does, when not to use it, and how to override the model. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple tool shape (2 parameters, output schema present) and clear alternative hint, the description is mostly complete. The main gaps are explicit path semantics and side-effect disclosure, but overall it provides enough context for a small tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the model parameter with the engine:model-id format, and 'short clip' implies path points to an audio/video file, but the path parameter is not explicitly defined and no default model behavior is described. Partial compensation.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'plain synchronous transcription of a short clip via the MacWhisper CLI.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly saying 'no enhancement, no diarization, just text now' and even names process_audio as 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 provides explicit usage guidance: use this tool for quick, plain transcription; use process_audio() instead for noisy audio or speaker labels. This gives clear when-to-use vs. alternative direction.

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