get_audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by specifying the output format (base64-encoded MP3), time range parameters, and duration limits (max 120 seconds). However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid URLs.

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 perfectly structured with three concise sentences that each add value: the core functionality, parameter guidance, and use case context. There's no wasted language, and the most important information comes first.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but not complete coverage. It explains the core functionality and use cases well, but doesn't address error conditions, authentication, or detailed behavioral constraints that would be helpful for an AI agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about time range parameters ('Use time range parameters to limit duration') and mentions the 120-second maximum, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Extract an audio clip'), resource ('from a YouTube video'), and output format ('base64-encoded MP3'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_comments or get_screenshot that handle different data types. It provides a complete picture of what the tool does beyond just the name.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Useful for analyzing speech, music, or audio when transcript isn't available'), which helps differentiate it from potential alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools from the sibling list.

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