youtube-to-markdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'including transcript if available,' which hints at conditional behavior, but doesn't explain what happens if no transcript is available, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a conversion tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes a useful detail about transcripts. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (conversion with conditional transcript inclusion), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but misses details like output format specifics, error cases, or performance expectations. It's complete enough to understand the tool's intent but lacks depth for reliable agent use.

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%, with the parameter 'url' fully documented in the schema as 'URL of the YouTube video.' The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as URL format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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: 'Convert a YouTube video to markdown, including transcript if available.' It specifies the verb ('Convert'), resource ('YouTube video'), and output format ('markdown'), which is clear and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'audio-to-markdown' or 'webpage-to-markdown' beyond the resource type, keeping it from a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites (e.g., video accessibility), or exclusions (e.g., for non-YouTube URLs). Usage is implied by the name and description alone, with no explicit context or alternatives provided.

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