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 behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond the schema by explaining the three formats, the timestamp/title layout for simple format, and the automatic fallback naming for labels without text. It does not cover error behavior or whether the operation is read-only, but it is substantially transparent for an export utility.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then formats and behavior, then parameter documentation. Each sentence adds value and the length is appropriate for a tool with three parameters and multiple format options.

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 of this complexity, the description covers the core invocation details: output path, formats, defaults, and overwrite semantics. It does not mention return values or failure modes, but since there is no output schema and the operation is a straightforward file export, the missing details are minor.

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, and it does. It explains that path is an absolute output path, format enumerates the three valid values with a default, and overwrite explicitly describes replacement behavior. All three parameters receive meaningful semantics beyond the raw 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 a specific verb and resource: export labels as a chapter/marker file. It distinguishes the output format and purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast it with similar label export siblings like label_export or label_export_audio_segments.

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 gives concrete use cases such as chapter navigation, track listings, and interview indexes, which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over label_export or label_export_audio_segments, nor does it mention exclusions.

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