extract_subtitles

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, but it only states the core action. It does not mention potential failure modes (e.g., missing subtitle track), prerequisites, or that the input video is not modified. The description adds no deeper behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's action and result. It contains no redundant information and is easy to parse.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is only minimally complete. It does not explain error behavior, default naming conventions (though schema covers some), or how extraction interacts with other tools. It is adequate for a simple operation but lacks richer context.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of all four parameters with clear descriptions, so the description itself adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles parameter clarity.

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 a subtitle track from a video and saves it as a standalone file. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_audio, burn_subtitles, and embed_subtitles.

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 the tool is used when subtitles need to be extracted as a separate file, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like burn_subtitles have different purposes, yet no comparative guidance is provided.

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