video2txt

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It reveals that the tool is link-based and includes a duration recommendation, but it does not describe output format, failure behavior, or what happens for videos longer than 5 minutes.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the length recommendation is the only extra but relevant detail.

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 one-parameter tool this is nearly sufficient, but the absence of an output schema and annotations means the agent is not explicitly told what result to expect, such as extracted transcript text or a downloadable file. The handling of videos over 5 minutes is also left unclear.

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 clarifies that the sole parameter is a user-provided video link and reiterates that no other input is needed, adding meaning beyond the bare property name 'videoUrl'. It stops short of specifying URL formats or access requirements.

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 states a specific verb ('提取') and resource ('视频中的文案') and clearly tells the user to input a video link. It differentiates the tool from most siblings like video2video or imageGenVideo, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as subtitleDynamic.

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 provides clear usage context: the user supplies a video link and the recommended video length is under 5 minutes. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over subtitleDynamic or other text/video-related siblings, nor does it state explicit exclusions.

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