download_audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses some behaviors: audio-only, speed optimizations via aria2c, and broad site support. However, it does not mention return values, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., network), or side effects like directory creation/overwrite, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 a single paragraph with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the key usage note. It is somewhat long but every sentence adds value, with the exception of 'Built by Augent' which is mildly redundant. Overall well-structured.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations. The description explains the tool's purpose and usage well but fails to clarify what the tool returns (e.g., file path, success message) or behavior on failure. This missing information is significant for an agent to confidently use the 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 100% with both parameters described. The description adds context about supported sites and the 'audio only' behavior, but it does not meaningfully extend the schema descriptions for url or output_dir. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 downloads audio from video URLs, explicitly notes it downloads audio only (never video), and lists supported platforms. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like transcribe_audio and search_audio.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'When a user pastes ANY URL and asks what was said... use this tool to download, then transcribe_audio' and directly warns against WebFetch for media URLs. This provides strong context for choosing the tool over alternatives.

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