kuaishou-video-extract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the core behavioral trait — the video-to-text transformation happens automatically upon link submission. However, it does not reveal the output format, whether transcription or subtitle extraction is used, processing constraints (e.g., video length, public access), or failure behavior, which matters more given zero annotation coverage.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose, adds a clarifying parenthetical, and then gives the usage instruction. Every element earns its place with zero redundant wording.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description adequately specifies the input and the action (link in, extracted copy out), which is enough for an agent to invoke it. However, with no output schema present, the description should ideally clarify what the returned text looks like (plain transcript vs. structured segments) and any limitations, leaving a moderate gap.

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 100%, with the url parameter already described as "快手视频链接" (Kuaishou video link). The description adds the semantic that this link triggers automatic copy extraction, but it mostly echoes the schema rather than extending it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: "提取文案" (extract copy) from "快手视频" (Kuaishou video), reinforced by the clarifying parenthetical "视频转文字" (video to text). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like kuaishou-account-works, kuaishou-comment, and the various platform video downloaders, none of which convert a video link into a transcript.

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 gives a clear invocation pattern — "提交视频链接自动提取文案" (submit a video link to automatically extract copy) — establishing that this tool is used when the agent possesses a Kuaishou video URL and needs its text content. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when-not-to-use conditions, so the guidance is clear context without exclusion logic.

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