extract_audio

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions output codec and container, but does not state where the resulting .m4a file is written, whether existing files are overwritten, or what success/failure looks like. The missing output-location behavior is material for correct use.

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 one clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and the output format, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

While the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description omits critical operational details such as output file location and side effects. Without annotations, an agent cannot confidently predict the result of invoking this tool beyond knowing that an .m4a file is produced somewhere.

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 only parameter, video_path, is already fully described in the schema as 'Local path to the video,' with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra semantic precision or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific operation ('Pull the audio track out of a video') and the output format (AAC .m4a), so an agent knows what the tool does. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as transcode_video or replace_audio.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like transcode_video or replace_audio. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative routing is given.

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