export_srt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to re-establish safety. It adds mild value by specifying 'does not write or upload files,' which rules out side effects like network uploads more concretely than the annotations do, but it adds no deeper behavioral context such as encoding details or handling of missing tracks.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Both the core behavior and the key non-behavior are stated efficiently, and every clause earns its place.

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 at least indicate the return format ('SRT text'), which is helpful. However, it omits the semantics of the optional track parameter, and there is no mention of whether the tool returns raw SRT content directly or wraps it in a structure, leaving a moderate completeness gap for a fairly simple 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It indirectly clarifies that 'name' identifies a managed project, but 'track' is completely unexplained: no information about valid values, what a null track means, or how track selection affects output.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return'), names the resource ('a managed project's subtitles'), and states the exact output format ('SRT text'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting that it does not write or upload files, which sets it apart from tools like add_srt and publish_draft.

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 phrase 'a managed project's subtitles' makes the context clear: this tool is for retrieving subtitle text from a managed project, not for native drafts or media inspection. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is sufficiently clear given the sibling list.

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