get_transcript

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 explicitly states that the store parameter defaults to true and adds the transcript to the local knowledge base, a side effect. It also specifies the return value as a dict with plain-text transcript, language, and metadata, covering the main behavior adequately.

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 structured with a clear first line, an Args block, and a Returns line, making it easy to scan. It is moderately long but every sentence adds value, including examples and defaults. It is appropriately front-loaded with the purpose, though slightly verbose in the Args section.

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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers all parameters, the return value, and the store side effect. It does not address error handling or edge cases (e.g., missing transcript), but these are not essential for basic usage and would likely be surfaced through other means.

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, and it does so fully. It explains video as a URL or 11-character ID, languages as comma-separated with priority order and a default, translate_to as a target language code, and store with its default and side effect. Every parameter is clearly documented with examples and defaults.

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 starts with 'Return the transcript/subtitles for a single YouTube video,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like research_topic, search_knowledge, and knowledge_stats, none of which relate to transcript retrieval. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident from the name and opening line, so usage is implied. It provides context for the store parameter, indicating when to persist transcripts for later search. However, there is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools for similar tasks, which would have earned a higher score.

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