split_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses FFmpeg-based processing and that input is a local file, but leaves unclear whether audio is re-encoded, whether the source file is modified, where segment files are written, and how output files are named from the prefix.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is short rather than padded, though the terseness is partly why the behavioral gaps exist.

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 filesystem-mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not say where segments are written or what the caller gets back, which an agent needs before invoking it.

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 all three required parameters. It clarifies that the path is a local audio file and that segment_seconds is a maximum duration, but filename_prefix — which governs output naming — is never explained anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: split audio into segments of a requested maximum duration, plus the implementation (FFmpeg). This distinguishes it from siblings like trim_audio and merge_audio, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this instead of trim_audio, convert_audio, merge_audio, or create_audio_loop. The purpose implies segmentation, but nothing tells the agent the conditions that select this tool over its close neighbors.

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