label_export_chapters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well. It explicitly notes the tool is 'Not yet independently live-tested against a running Audacity — verified against the scripting reference and unit tests with mocked responses only,' which is an honest and important behavioral disclosure. It also reveals that labels with no text are auto-named 'Chapter 1', 'Chapter 2', etc., adding behavioral context beyond what the schema provides.

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 reasonably concise with an organized structure, though it slightly over-explains the use-case narrative. It front-loads purpose well.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity representing a write operation with format variations. The description covers the formats, path requirement, and default naming behavior. However, it doesn't describe what the return value or success/failure indication looks like, nor does it discuss error conditions (e.g., what happens if the path already exists, which it hints is prohibited). For a file-exporting tool the completeness is adequate but could be richer on error/validation 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%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It explains that 'path' is an absolute path for the output file and must not already exist, and that 'format' takes simple/cue/podlove values with default simple. This covers both parameters adequately, though the format values were partially enumerated in prose rather than schema enums. The guidance is sufficient to understand both parameters.

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?

Description clearly states 'Export labels as a chapter/marker file' with specific verb, resource, and output type. It explains the transformation (label track → standard marker file) and gives concrete use cases (long-form audio chapters, track listing for mixes, lecture indexes), effectively distinguishing it from sibling label tools like label_export or project_export_labels by emphasizing the chapter/marker transformation rather than raw label export.

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?

Description gives clear context on what the tool produces and introduces the distinction between label tracks and marker/chapter files, which differentiates it from the related label_export and project_export_labels siblings. It enumerates the three format options (simple, cue, podlove), which serves as selection guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternative tools for comparison, so it falls short of a 5.

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