label_export_audio_segments

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It reveals output format restrictions (mono WAV only), naming scheme, skipping of zero-length point labels, non-overwrite behavior with reporting, performance warning, and a limitation compared to v3's Export2. This is unusually 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?

Every sentence earns its place. The main action is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence covers a distinct behavioral or practical concern without repetition or filler. It is detailed but compact.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description provides everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: file naming, skip conditions, overwrite behavior, output format limitation, and a mandatory user-facing confirmation step.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the only parameter. It does: 'directory: Absolute path to the output directory.' That adds crucial meaning beyond the bare string type, including the requirement that the path be absolute.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Export the audio under each label as its own mono WAV file.' It clearly distinguishes this from label metadata exports like label_export or label_export_chapters by focusing on per-segment audio file generation.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: always tell the user the output directory before calling, point labels are skipped, existing files are never overwritten, and long segment lists may take a while. It does not name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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