Extract audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the original is unchanged and the output format is MP3, but it omits overwrite behavior, error handling, permission needs, and what is returned after extraction.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core operation and the non-destructive guarantee are stated immediately.

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 three-parameter file-transformation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description leaves important gaps: bitrate semantics, output path behavior, overwrite policy, and return value. It is not complete enough for confident invocation without inspecting 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives some meaning for input (a media file in ~/Videos) and output format (MP3), but does not explain the bitrate parameter at all, nor whether output is a path, filename, or directory.

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 uses a specific verb (extract) and resource (audio from a media file), and specifies format (MP3) and location (~/Videos). It distinguishes the operation from the sibling video tools implicitly, though it never names an alternative or explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose statement; there is no explicit condition for when to choose this tool over video_probe, trim_video, or burn_subtitles. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are stated.

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