get_video

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 advanced options like timestamps, time range filtering, search, and key segments extraction, which adds useful context beyond basic retrieval. However, it lacks details on potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling for invalid URLs), leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 efficiently structured with two sentences: the first states the core purpose and features, and the second provides usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key features, but lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of metadata/transcript) and potential behavioral constraints. With no output schema, some completeness gaps remain, though the description does a solid job overall.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by summarizing the advanced options (e.g., 'timestamps, time range filtering, search within transcript, and key segments extraction'), but it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies. This meets 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 specific action ('Get a YouTube video's metadata and English transcript') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_audio, get_comments, get_playlist, and get_screenshot by focusing on video-specific content extraction. It explicitly mentions advanced options like timestamps, filtering, and key segments extraction, making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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: 'Use this to summarize YouTube videos, find specific moments, or extract key takeaways.' This gives clear use cases and distinguishes it from alternatives like get_audio (for audio extraction) or get_comments (for comment analysis), helping the agent select the appropriate tool based on the task.

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