get_video_transcript

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Never contacts YouTube,' indicating a local read operation with no network calls. It also implies pagination via 'Page through,' but doesn't address error handling, auth, or what happens if the video isn't indexed.

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 short sentences, with the main action in the first sentence and a critical caveat in the second. It's front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 simple paginated getter, the description covers the core behavior and an important limitation (never contacts YouTube). The presence of an output schema covers return shape details, and the required parameters are in the schema. However, it lacks context about what a 'brain' is and how video_id relates to the index.

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 provides no explicit parameter explanations. 'For one video' hints at the video_id parameter and 'Page through' hints at limit/offset, but brain_id is left unexplained. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Page through' and identifies the resource as 'indexed caption chunks for one video.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_brain or list_brain_videos by focusing on retrieving transcript content for a single video.

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 that this tool retrieves captions from an index, and the statement 'Never contacts YouTube' implies it's the offline/local option compared to potential live fetch alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use it over search_brain or other siblings.

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