video_to_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It mentions 'save locally' but doesn't disclose where files are saved, file naming, permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'extract audio' entails technically.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary words. Every phrase ('download a video from URL', 'extract audio', 'transcribe to text', 'save locally') directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like file handling, error cases, performance, or output structure, which are critical for an AI agent to use this tool correctly in complex scenarios.

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 33% (only 'language' has a description), but the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It implies 'url' is for video download but doesn't detail supported formats or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema provides some coverage, but the description doesn't compensate for gaps.

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 specific sequence of actions: download video from URL, extract audio, transcribe to text, and save locally. It uses concrete verbs and distinguishes from the sibling 'voice_to_text' by specifying video as the input source rather than voice/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 on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'voice_to_text' or other alternatives. The description implies usage for video-to-text conversion but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or comparative contexts.

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