download_caption_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the ownership requirement, the return content as text, and the exact return object shape (data, error, successful). It does not mention potential errors or rate limits, but for a simple download operation, it provides solid transparency.

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 uses a clean Args/Returns structure, with every sentence providing useful information and no redundancy. It is 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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, ownership requirement, parameter details, and return format. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates by detailing each parameter: id's origin from list_captions and tfmt's allowed formats and default. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 downloads a specific YouTube caption track owned by the authenticated user, with a specific verb ('downloads') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_captions by focusing on the download action.

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 implies the appropriate usage context by noting the id comes from list_captions response, indicating a dependency. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use this tool.

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