get_timestamped_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. It only states the output (transcript with timestamps) and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, potential errors, rate limits, or whether it is destructive. More detail is needed for a higher score.

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 consists of two sentences with no superfluous information. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and additional context in the second sentence. Every sentence contributes value.

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 that an output schema exists, return value explanation is not required. However, the tool has no annotations and only one parameter, yet the description does not cover error scenarios, prerequisites, or limitations. It is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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%, meaning the parameter 'video_url' has no description. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the parameter name. It does not specify expected format, constraints, or examples, which lowers the score.

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 returns a full transcript with timestamps and mentions its use case for citing specific moments. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_youtube_transcript or search_transcript. A higher score would require explicit differentiation.

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 a usage context ('when an agent needs to cite specific moments'), but does not give guidance on when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives. It implies when to use it but lacks explicit when-not or alternative recommendations.

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