ass_karaoke_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely does: it discloses the write side effect (writes into workspace.output_dir), the exact filename convention, and the return payload shape. It omits overwrite/clobber behavior and any permission requirements, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, then arguments and returns are cleanly sectioned. The format listing is verbose but each format's output is materially different, so most sentences earn their place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly supplies the return key list and per-format output details. A 4 rather than 5 because doc_id's role and file-overwrite behavior are left unstated for a tool whose job is writing a file to disk.

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, and it documents three of four parameters in detail, including the exact column layout for each format value and the default behaviors. It does not document doc_id at all, which is the only gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Export syllable timings') plus scope ('for other karaoke tools'), which distinguishes it from generic siblings like ass_export_text or ass_plain_text. An agent can tell what it produces without opening the schema.

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 implied by the purpose and by the stated default ('None exports every line that carries karaoke tags; pass a selection to override'), but no alternative tool is named and no when-not condition is given (e.g. vs ass_karaoke_get or ass_karaoke_tags_only). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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