ytdlp__download_audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output format (m4a), quality selection (best-quality audio track), fallback directory order, support for cookies/proxy, and retry cap. It omits response/return value details, but given the tool's nature (audio download) and the amount of behavioral context provided, it is sufficiently transparent.

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 front-loaded summary followed by @remarks and @param annotations. Each line adds unique value—no fluff. The @param block is necessary given the 0% schema coverage, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (network access, optional authentication, fallback directories, retries). The description covers all parameters, output format, quality, and default behavior. However, it does not describe what the tool returns (no output schema), which would be useful for the agent to know. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 0%, but the description uses @param tags to explain all six parameters with constraints (URL must start with http/https), examples (proxy), fallback logic (output_dir), defaults (maxRetries capped at 2), and formats (cookies Netscape). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Download', the target resource 'audio from a video URL', and the output format 'm4a'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ytdlp__download_video by focusing on audio extraction and mentioning 'Extracts best-quality audio track'.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when audio is needed) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases. Sibling tool names are visible, but the description itself does not compare with download_video or download_transcript. Still, the context 'Download audio' is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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