media_extract_audio

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

No annotations exist, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It lacks details on overwriting behavior, file size limits, error handling, or any side effects. The basic parameter defaults are mentioned, but important aspects are missing.

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 concise: one line for purpose, one for usage context, and a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with the core action.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main functionality and key parameters. Minor omissions (e.g., error conditions) prevent a perfect score.

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 coverage, the description adds meaning by listing each parameter with its purpose, default value, and for 'format' the allowed values (wav, mp3, flac). This goes beyond the schema which only provides titles and defaults.

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 extracts audio from a video file, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like media_extract_thumbnail and media_audio_to_midi by focusing on audio extraction.

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 suggests use cases like transcription and sheet music creation, but does not contrast with alternatives (e.g., media_audio_to_midi) or specify when not to use this tool. Guidance is present but limited.

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