YouTube Media Downloader

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by mentioning the prerequisite call and the multi-functionality (translate, convert, download), but lacks details on side effects (e.g., if it modifies data, requires authentication, or has rate limits). It adequately covers the basic operation but misses deeper behavioral traits.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 complexity (multi-function with 4 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and prerequisite well, but could improve by hinting at output behavior (e.g., what is returned) or error handling. It's sufficient for basic use but has minor 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'fixOverlap' or provide extra context for 'targetLang'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('translate, convert and download') and resource ('subtitle of a YouTube video'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on retrieval (e.g., 'get_video_details') or listing operations. It explicitly outlines the multi-step functionality, making it distinct and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool by specifying a prerequisite: 'Before doing this, please call endpoint `Video > Get Video Details` to obtain subtitle URLs.' This directly informs the agent of the necessary context and sequence, with no ambiguity about alternatives or exclusions.

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