subtitles

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 adds value by mentioning 'Quota cost is 1 unit', which informs about resource usage, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's operational behavior.

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 the core purpose in the first sentence and efficiently adds quota information in the second, with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters. It covers the basic purpose and quota cost but lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances. This is adequate for a simple read operation but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent.

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 meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'list of available subtitles for the video', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'transcript' or 'converttranslatedownload_subtitle', which might also handle subtitle-related operations, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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, such as 'transcript' or 'converttranslatedownload_subtitle', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context could lead to incorrect tool selection in complex scenarios involving subtitle retrieval.

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