extract_audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the function but lacks details on traits like whether it overwrites existing audio files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or has performance constraints (e.g., large video processing). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by param and return details in a structured format. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Params:' and 'Returns:' labels could be integrated more seamlessly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (audio extraction from video), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks details on output behavior (e.g., audio format, location) and error handling, which are important for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'input_video_path' is a 'Path to the input video,' clarifying the parameter's purpose. With only one parameter, this compensates well for the schema gap, though it could specify format expectations (e.g., file extensions).

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 tool's purpose as 'extract audio from the given input video,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'extract_frames' or 'get_video_metadata' that also process videos but for different outputs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., video format compatibility), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'extract_frames' for visual extraction, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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