ffkit_extract_audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the core operation but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens to the original file, or any side effects (e.g., temporary files, licensing). The description is minimal and does not add behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 two sentences, front-loading the primary action. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy. It is efficiently sized for quick comprehension.

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 has 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the output file contains, the return value format, error conditions, or that the original file is preserved. The context is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and expected results.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as the option to re-encode, but this is already implied by the codec parameter description. With high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Extract the audio stream') and the resource ('from a video/audio file'). It also mentions the re-encoding capability, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ffkit_add_subtitles or ffkit_clip that serve different purposes.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ffkit_transcode). It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, and does not mention any prerequisites or context that would help an agent decide between this and sibling tools.

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