cut_audio_segment

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only lists parameters and a vague return description ('切割结果信息'). Does not disclose behavior such as file creation, format support, or side effects.

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 concise bullet list in Chinese, with each parameter on its own line. It is front-loaded with the purpose statement. No unnecessary sentences, though could be slightly more structured.

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 no output schema and only a vague return description, the description is incomplete. It does not mention supported audio formats, error handling, or prerequisites. The tool is simple but more context is needed for reliable use.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description compensates well. It explains each parameter's meaning, format (HH:MM:SS), and notes mutual exclusivity of end_time and duration. This adds clear value beyond the schema structure.

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 cuts an audio segment ('切割音频片段'). It specifies the verb and resource, but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like cut_video_segment or extract_audio_segment, lacking scope distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain when to choose cut_audio_segment over extract_audio_segment or cut_video_segment. No when/when-not context provided.

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