transcripts_getTranscript

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get the transcript') but doesn't describe traits like whether it's a read-only operation, error handling (e.g., for missing transcripts), rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (a read operation with 2 parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error cases, output format, or usage constraints. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective tool invocation is insufficient.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('videoId' and 'language') documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it mentions 'YouTube video' which aligns with 'videoId' but doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage nuances. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get the transcript of a YouTube video', which includes a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('transcript of a YouTube video'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'videos_getVideo' or 'videos_searchVideos' by focusing on transcripts rather than video metadata or search results. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential transcript-related siblings (none exist in the provided list), keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid video ID), exclusions (e.g., videos without transcripts), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'videos_getVideo' for general video info. This lack of usage context leaves the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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