Arcmira: YouTube Transcript Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds non-obvious context that annotations cannot express: 'Reads no indexed content and bills nothing' tells the agent there is no cost or side effect to fetching the reference, and it lists the kinds of content the reference contains (arguments, id rules, errors). It does not say how the reference is returned (single text blob, truncated, paginated), which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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 billing/no-content sentence and the docs link are well placed at the end, and the purpose is front-loaded. However, the opening is a single sprawling colon-and-parenthetical construction with comma-spliced fragments, and the title ('YouTube research reference') is effectively restated. It could be split into two clean sentences without losing content.

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 two-optional-parameter documentation lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the reference contains, how to narrow it, that it reads no content, and that it is free, with a docs URL for depth. Missing only the shape of the response (a single prose document) and guidance that omitting 'topic' returns a very large payload, which the schema rather than the description carries.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description's 'topic narrows it, like transcript, search, sponsors or monitors' largely duplicates the schema's own example list. The 'intent' parameter is not mentioned at all in the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific resource ('the reference for YouTube and podcast transcript research in Arcmira') and enumerates what it covers: client methods such as search, transcript, mentions, sponsors and monitors, plus arguments, return fields, id rules, examples and errors. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling that consumes the reference ('the arcmira client methods that arcmira_execute_read programs call'). The phrasing is dense and reads partly as a description of what execute_read can do rather than what this tool returns, which slightly blurs the line.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: by describing itself as the reference for methods that arcmira_execute_read calls, the agent can infer it should consult this before executing a read. 'topic narrows it, like transcript, search, sponsors or monitors' gives a concrete narrowing cue. There is no explicit 'call this first', no when-not guidance, and no direct comparison to arcmira_execute_write or arcmira_feedback.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which is non-obvious for a transcript tool; the description explains exactly why, disclosing that a Premium read of an untranscribed video starts a transcription that draws on plan credits, then on-demand budget, and reports its charge. It further discloses sandbox scope (arcmira, ArcmiraError, console), execution limits (30 seconds, 40 API calls, 12,000 characters total, 3,000 per string, 100 items per array), and the shape of bounded JSON output. This is behavior an agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

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 content is valuable but delivered as two very long run-on sentences with repetition (podcasts appear multiple times) and a feature list that meanders before the mechanism. It is front-loaded on the user-facing benefit, which is good, but tighter paragraphing separating purpose, invocation, cost, and limits would make it scannable. Nothing is wholly wasted, though several clauses could be trimmed without loss.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by specifying the output envelope (result first, then call count, rate limit, build, capped logs) and the exact caps. For a code-execution tool with billing side effects, it also covers sandbox globals, time/call budgets, and credit consumption, which is everything an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description nonetheless adds meaning beyond the schema: what identifiers are in scope inside the function body, what a return value looks like, two concrete call forms (arcmira.transcript(url, { start, end }) and (await arcmira.search({ query })).chunks), and that filters accept entity, channel or video ids. That materially raises the chance of a correct first invocation.

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 names a concrete resource and outcome: YouTube/podcast transcripts, exact quotes with the second they were said, timestamped watch links, and speaker attribution. It also discloses the underlying mechanism ("Runs a JavaScript program against the Arcmira API through the arcmira client"), which distinguishes it from arcmira_execute_write and arcmira_describe. The only weakness is placement: the general-purpose execution nature is buried in the second half after a narrow-sounding feature list, so the top line undersells what the tool actually is.

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?

Clear triggering condition is given: "Use Arcmira when the user shares a youtube.com or youtu.be link, or asks what a YouTube video or podcast said." It also points to arcmira_describe for other methods and examples. What is missing is an explicit exclusion versus arcmira_execute_write (i.e., when the task is a mutation, use the write tool instead), so the boundary is implied rather than stated.

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

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, the description adds substantial value: concrete execution limits (30 seconds, 40 API calls, 12,000 characters total, 3,000 per string, 100 items per array) and the scope of write operations. The statement 'Nothing is deleted' is useful but sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=true, since updates can still overwrite existing monitor configuration; that nuance is not explained.

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 front-loaded with what the tool does and the monitor write surface, then the limits, with no filler sentences. It is dense and information-rich, though the long list of limits and operation names in one block is slightly harder to scan than a cleanly separated structure would be.

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 code-execution tool with no output schema, it correctly delegates return-value documentation ('The MONITORS section of arcmira_describe has the fields and results') and covers runtime and size limits, which is the main failure mode for an agent writing JS here. The remaining gap is the interaction between 'Nothing is deleted' and the destructive hint, which an agent mutating existing monitors would benefit from understanding.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already explains `code` and `intent` fully. The description adds only indirect context by saying it 'Runs JavaScript like arcmira_execute_read', which reinforces the execution model but adds no new constraint on the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Creates and updates Arcmira monitors') and immediately scopes the resource ('alert ... when a person, brand or phrase comes up on YouTube'), then distinguishes it from the sibling by saying it 'Runs JavaScript like arcmira_execute_read, plus the monitor writes'. An agent can separate this from arcmira_execute_read without opening either schema.

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?

It clearly frames the write context by enumerating the write operations available (create, update including paused, addEntities, addName, attachTrackers) and contrasting with the read sibling, so the agent knows when this tool is required. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or prerequisites (e.g. whether monitors must already exist for update/attach calls), which keeps it below a 5.

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

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, it discloses the windowing contract in detail: each result holds the lines from start that fit in one reply, next_start is the value to pass for the next window and is null after the last line, and continuation is guaranteed gap-free and without repeated lines. It also states the payload shape (timestamped lines, speaker when known, title, channel, publish date, length).

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then when-to-use, then the pagination mechanism — a sensible order. The opening sentence is long and clause-heavy, but every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description fully compensates by describing the returned fields and the next_start pagination state. For a mutation-free read tool with four well-documented parameters, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics: start 'also opens the transcript at a given second', next_start is what to feed back as start, and language selects caption language. It does not elaborate on the intent or video-id format beyond the schema, keeping it above baseline rather than maximal.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'Reads the whole transcript of one YouTube video, podcasts on YouTube included, from its id or any youtube.com or youtu.be link,' followed by exactly what comes back. An agent can distinguish this from arcmira_youtube_search (find videos) and arcmira_execute_read (generic read) without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions are given: the user shares a youtube.com/youtu.be link to summarize, quote or check, or asks what a video or podcast said. It does not name a sibling as the alternative path (e.g. youtube_search when only a title is known), so the routing is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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