transcript_probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the non-destructive, no-download behavior, that caption existence 'would make it near-instant' (a latency hint), and that it reports whether cookies are needed. It omits auth/permission requirements and rate-limit behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the defining constraint, and every sentence adds information. The final clause ('what would happen rather than what might') is slightly ornamental, and the line-broken formatting is a bit loose, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description still previews the key signals an agent needs (duration, captions, cookies, existing). For a 3-param probe tool this is nearly complete; only auth/permission context and the captions default are unaddressed.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the two meaningful params: it explains that captions/language drive the 'existing' check and must match create's values. The 'source' param is only implicitly described ('inspect a source'), and the default caption mode 'manual_only' is never explained, leaving a small gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('inspect a source') and immediately bounds the behavior ('without transcribing it, and without downloading it'), which separates it cleanly from transcript_create. The enumeration of what it reports (duration, caption presence, cookie need, existing transcript) makes the tool's effect unambiguous.

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?

Strong contextual guidance: 'Pass the same language and captions you would pass to transcript_create' tells the agent this is a pre-flight check that mirrors create's settings. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, so it falls just short of the top score.

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