get_segment

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 the half-open interval and time unit, which is useful. However, it does not describe the output format, error behavior, or explicitly confirm read-only nature, leaving some ambiguity.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and directly states the key constraints.

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?

The description is adequate for the core function of retrieving a time-bounded transcript segment, but it lacks detail on the optional lang parameter and the expected return structure. With no output schema and a low-parameter-information schema, additional context would help, though the tool is relatively simple.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains start and end as time boundaries, but does not explain the url or lang parameters. The agent must infer url identifies the transcript and lang selects language, which is not explicitly stated.

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 transcript text for a specific time range, using the precise half-open interval [start, end) in seconds. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transcript (full transcript) and search_transcript (search within transcript).

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to retrieve a segment of a transcript by time). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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