read_owned_video_captions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: this is a passive read that does not seek or replay, i.e. it cannot force captions into existence. It leaves unstated what happens when cues are not yet loaded (empty vs. error), which is the main remaining 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the non-disruptive constraint follows immediately. Nothing is wasted.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, so the description only needs to explain scope and preconditions. It covers the non-disruptive constraint but not the failure mode when captions are absent or the relationship to chapter position, leaving a moderate gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully clarifies the implicit target ('of this chapter'), telling the agent the scope is the current chapter rather than an arbitrary video.

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: reads subtitle cues of 'this chapter'. The 'already-loaded' qualifier narrows scope meaningfully. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like observe_video_question or control_owned_video, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'already-loaded ... without seeking or replay' implies the when-to-use condition (captions exist and playback must not be disturbed), but no alternative tool is named and no exclusion is stated. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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