extract_segment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool returns the path of the new file and defaults to writing next to the source if output_path is omitted. It does not mention non-destructive nature, but the behavior is clear enough.

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, no wasted words. First sentence states action and result; second provides usage context and default behavior. Excellent structure for quick agent comprehension.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return value, and default output location. Missing details like unit specification and edge cases, but adequate for a simple extraction tool among similar audio siblings.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is expected to explain parameters. It clarifies output_path's default but fails to specify units for start_time and end_time (likely seconds), and does not detail validation or range constraints. Partial compensation but incomplete.

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 it cuts a time range from a recording into a standalone wav file, with specific use cases like isolating objections or artifacts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like transcribe or render_spectrogram, which have different purposes.

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 mentions it is useful for isolating key moments for sharing or analysis, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like using get_audio_info for metadata.

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