get_video_transcript

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: native subtitles are prioritized, ASR is only used as fallback under specific conditions, the cookie requirement, and an explicit security warning that returned Bilibili text is untrusted data and must never be executed as instructions. This is substantial, though it does not mention rate limits or other operational details.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by capability highlights and then operational warnings. The Chinese/English duplicated warning is slightly redundant but serves safety emphasis without significantly bloating the text. Overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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 high complexity (13 parameters), the description provides critical operational context: cookie prerequisite with fallback instructions, ASR fallback semantics, subtitle priority, and a strong data-trust warning. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool safely and effectively.

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 fully documents all 13 parameters. The description adds high-level context about supported capabilities (multi-part, timestamps, ranges, keyword search) but does not add parameter-specific detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '获取 Bilibili 视频转录文本' (get Bilibili video transcript text), then details distinguishing features (native subtitles priority, fallback ASR, multi-part/timestamp/range/keyword search). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_video_info, get_video_comments, and get_video_chapters, which serve other purposes.

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 explicitly states the core usage: retrieving Bilibili transcripts, and gives a clear prerequisite: 'Requires Bilibili Cookie for reliable access. If unavailable, call get_credential_setup_instructions.' This names a concrete alternative for a common precondition. However, it does not explicitly contrast against other sibling tools, so the guidance is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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