Arcmira: YouTube Transcript Search

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld=false, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new operational facts: it reads no indexed content and bills nothing. That cost/side-effect disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry. It still does not mention latency or that the full document is very large, but the added value is real.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero waste: purpose and contents first, then the scoping behavior, then a docs link. The most decision-relevant information (what it returns and that it is free/side-effect-free) is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the job of describing the return payload and does so thoroughly — it enumerates the reference sections an agent will receive. Combined with the schema's note on full-vs-narrowed size, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and understand the result.

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%, and both parameters are already documented in the schema including examples ('sponsors, resolve, transcript, monitors or dates') and the ~23,000-character size note. The description's 'optional topic narrows it to a method or subject' merely restates the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the reference for the typed arcmira client') and enumerates exactly what that reference contains: method arguments, return fields, entity ID rules, examples, errors, budget/monitor rules, doc links. It ties itself to the sibling execute tools by naming them as the consumers of the client, so an agent can tell it apart from arcmira_execute_read/write at a glance.

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 link to the execute tools is implied ('the typed arcmira client the execute tools run'), which suggests consulting this before executing, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative. Usage is inferable 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?

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false); the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the credit-consuming side effect of Premium reads of untranscribed videos, charge reporting, the sandbox scope, and hard execution limits (30s, 40 calls, output caps). This is exactly the supplementary behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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 dense paragraph that is well front-loaded: purpose, then capability list, then input/output contract, then limits. It is long but nearly every clause carries load; minor redundancy with the schema on the execution scope keeps it out of the top band.

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, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does: bounded JSON with the result first, then call count, rate limit, build, and capped logs, plus per-string/array caps. Combined with limits, credits, and error names, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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%, so 'code' and 'intent' are already fully documented, and the description's restatement of the async-function-body contract largely duplicates the schema. It adds no per-parameter syntax, format, or example beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Runs JavaScript against the Arcmira API through the arcmira client') and then enumerates the exact data domains reachable (transcripts, mentions, sponsors, coverage, monitors). An agent can distinguish this from arcmira_execute_write 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?

Gives concrete routing guidance ('Methods and examples: arcmira_describe') and a precondition for filters (entity, channel, or video IDs required). It does not state when to prefer arcmira_execute_write instead, so the read/write boundary is left to the tool name.

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 already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: hard limits of 30 seconds, 40 API calls, 12,000 characters total output, 3,000 per string and 100 items per array, plus the scope refinement that no deletions occur.

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?

Four tight sentences, no filler. The relationship to the sibling read tool comes first, then the write scope, then the safety constraint, then the operational limits — front-loaded and information-dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing return constraints (size caps per string and array) and points to arcmira_describe for field and result definitions. That covers most of what an agent needs; error surfacing and how partial failures behave are left unstated.

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% and both parameters (code, intent) are fully described in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the parameters themselves; its mention of the MONITORS section concerns the JavaScript API surface, not the tool's inputs.

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 (runs JavaScript to perform monitor writes) and enumerates the exact write operations available: create, update (including paused), addEntities, addName, attachTrackers. It explicitly positions itself against the sibling arcmira_execute_read, so an agent can distinguish the two 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?

Names arcmira_execute_read as the read-only counterpart and routes the agent to the MONITORS section of arcmira_describe for fields and results, which is actionable context. It also states the negative scope ('Nothing is deleted'), but does not spell out a when-not-use condition or permission prerequisites.

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?

Adds real context beyond the annotations: 'Each call adds a record; repeated calls create separate records' concretely explains the non-idempotent, append-only behavior flagged by idempotentHint=false, and 'Costs nothing' removes cost as a hesitation. It stays silent on auth requirements and any rate limits, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded, followed by triggers, then the append/cost caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information an agent needs.

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 5-param, 2-required write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, append semantics, and cost. It does not say what a successful call returns or whether any permission is needed, which are minor remaining gaps.

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% and the enum values are fully documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's trigger phrases loosely echo the category options but add no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (saves) and resource (a feedback record for the Arcmira team) with the subject matter scoped to what went wrong. This is unmistakably distinct from the sibling execute_read/execute_write/describe tools, which an agent can tell apart 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?

Gives concrete triggering conditions: empty result, error, truncated output, an ask that did not serve the user, or the user saying something was off. Strong when-to-use guidance, but there is no when-not guidance and no explicit reference to an alternative channel for non-feedback problems.

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