subtitle.export_ass

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states the core export action and does not mention overwrite behavior, config file handling, default styles, or output path defaults. Users are left unaware of side effects or operational constraints.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key information. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately brief for a tool with a clear primary function.

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's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions), the one-line description is insufficient. It does not address configuration, output handling, or operational nuances. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of guidance on inputs and behavior.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of the 7 parameters. It mentions 'normalized transcript JSON' and 'styled ASS' but gives no insight into parameters like style, width, height, overwrite, config_path, or output_path. This leaves the agent with no additional semantic understanding beyond the bare schema.

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 function: exporting a normalized transcript JSON file as styled ASS. The verb 'export' specifies the action, the resource is the transcript JSON, and the output format is ASS. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like subtitle.export_srt, which exports SRT, and subtitle.clean, which cleans 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 for converting a normalized transcript to ASS subtitles, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like subtitle.export_srt. The word 'normalized' hints at a prerequisite (e.g., prior cleaning), but this is not made explicit. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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