extract-youtube

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the extraction process: using available subtitles with language priority and falling back to Whisper speech-to-text with language detection. Annotations cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the description appropriately supplements with operational details without contradiction.

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 concise and front-loaded, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and key behavioral traits in two sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first states what is extracted, and the second explains the extraction method, with no wasted words.

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 (extraction with fallback mechanisms), annotations provide safety hints, and schema covers parameters well, the description is largely complete. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from mentioning the output format or structure, though it hints at content types. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 description does not need to detail parameters. It mentions content types like title, description, and transcript, which align with the boolean parameters in the schema, but adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'extract' and the resource 'YouTube videos', specifying the comprehensive content types: title, description, and transcript. It distinguishes this tool's functionality by detailing the extraction process with subtitle priority and Whisper fallback, making the purpose specific and 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?

The description implies usage for extracting content from YouTube videos, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as tools for other video platforms or different extraction methods. Since there are no sibling tools, this is adequate but lacks broader context or exclusions.

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