extract_audio_segment

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'extract audio from video' and mentions returning 'extraction result info'. It does not state whether the video file is modified, what happens on invalid inputs (e.g., start_time beyond video duration), or any side effects. For a read-like operation, it should be clearer about non-destructiveness.

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 short and includes a purpose line followed by a parameter list, which is reasonably structured. However, the parameter descriptions are terse (one word each), and the returns section is vague. It is not overly verbose, but could be more informative without adding much length.

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 (3 required) and no output schema, the description should provide more context on expected return values, error handling, and usage examples. The return info is too vague ('提取结果信息'), and no constraints on parameter values (e.g., positive duration) are mentioned. For a tool of moderate complexity, the description is incomplete.

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 provides a parameter list with brief Chinese descriptions (e.g., '输入视频文件路径' for video_path), adding basic meaning beyond schema titles. However, it lacks detail on format constraints (e.g., time format is implied but not explicitly stated in the description, though schema mentions 'HH:MM:SS' in title). Default values for output_path and audio_format are not mentioned in description.

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's purpose: extracting an audio segment from a video based on time range. It uses a specific verb (extract) and resource (audio segment from video), which is distinct from sibling tools like 'extract_audio_from_video' that likely extracts the entire audio track. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from that sibling, leaving some ambiguity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not include prerequisites, constraints (e.g., supported video formats), or scenarios where this tool is not suitable. An agent has no context for choosing this tool over others like 'cut_audio_segment' or 'extract_audio_from_video'.

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