list_my_video_captions

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full disclosure burden. It states the sign-in and ownership requirements and the non-public draft behavior, which are key behavioral traits. It does not detail error handling or return format, but for a simple read operation these are less critical.

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 two concise sentences with no redundancy, front-loading the main purpose and adding the draft inclusion and auth requirements without filler. Every sentence 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?

For a single-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential usage: what it lists, ownership scope, and auth prerequisite. It doesn't specify the exact output structure, but an agent can infer it will return caption track metadata; the simplicity of the tool makes this sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%: the parameter 'video' is described as 'Video ID or URL of a video you own'. The description reiterates the ownership aspect but adds no new syntax or format details beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action (list), resource (official caption tracks), and ownership scope (video owned by the signed-in account). It also mentions the inclusion of drafts, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_transcript or download_my_caption, making the purpose precise.

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 gives clear context for use: it is for owned videos and explicitly notes that it includes drafts not publicly served. It doesn't name alternatives explicitly, but the ownership requirement and draft inclusion indirectly differentiate it from other caption-related tools, so no exclusions are needed.

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