youtube-to-markdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions including a transcript 'if available,' hinting at conditional behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., invalid URLs, unavailable transcripts), rate limits, authentication needs, or output format details. For a conversion 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: 'Convert a YouTube video to markdown, including transcript if available.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word adds value without redundancy. This makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly and understand the tool's essence.

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 complexity of a conversion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., how transcripts are handled, error responses), output structure (e.g., markdown format specifics), and usage constraints. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for reliable tool invocation in varied scenarios.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter clearly documented as 'URL of the YouTube video.' The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as URL format requirements (e.g., must be a valid YouTube link) or examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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: 'Convert a YouTube video to markdown, including transcript if available.' It specifies the verb ('convert'), resource ('YouTube video'), and output format ('markdown'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'audio-to-markdown' or 'webpage-to-markdown' beyond the resource type, missing an opportunity to highlight unique features.

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., video accessibility), exclusions (e.g., private videos), or comparisons to siblings like 'audio-to-markdown' for audio-only content or 'webpage-to-markdown' for general web content. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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