extract_audio_from_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool saves the extracted audio and returns a status but does not clarify whether the original video is modified, what codecs are actually supported, or any prerequisites. The term 'extracts' could be misinterpreted as removing audio from the source, so transparency is lacking.

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 one-sentence summary followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no wasted 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 tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and return type. It could mention edge cases or explicitly state non-destructive behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description thoroughly documents all three parameters, providing clear definitions and an example codec list. Since schema_description_coverage is 0%, this compensation fully addresses parameter semantics, earning a 5.

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 that the tool extracts audio from a video and saves it, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like convert_audio_format or trim_video by focusing on the extraction operation.

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 implies usage (when you need to extract audio from video) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as convert_audio_format or convert_audio_properties. There are no exclusions or comparisons, so it scores a 3.

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