convert_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description explains the conversion process (using FFmpeg), lists supported formats, and notes default output path behavior. It does not disclose potential limitations like encoding flags or error handling, but covers the core behavior adequately.

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 well-structured with a header, format list, common conversions, sample prompts, and parameter list. It is thorough yet concise, with every sentence adding value.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, conversion functionality), the description covers purpose, formats, examples, and parameters comprehensively. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. The description is complete.

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 has 0% coverage, but the description lists all parameters in the Args section, explaining output_path default and quality levels. This adds meaning beyond the schema properties and compensates for the lack of 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 tool converts audio/video files between formats using FFmpeg, lists supported formats, and provides common conversion examples. This distinguishes it from siblings like extract_video_clip or transcribe_local.

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 sample prompts and lists common conversions, which implicitly guides when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, though the sibling list provides context.

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