Pobierz fragment transkryptu wideo

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that a transcript fragment is returned for a time range; it says nothing about transcript format (plain text, timestamps, language), permission requirements, or behavior when the range exceeds the video length.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the time-range constraint is stated immediately. It is efficiently written, though arguably too terse given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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?

For a read tool with no output schema, the description should say more about what the returned transcript looks like (segments, timestamps, language). It covers the core contract (input range, transcript output) but leaves return-value detail and edge-case behavior 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (document_id, start, end) are already documented in the schema. The description's only added detail is that units are seconds, which the schema property descriptions already state. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (zwraca) and resource (transkrypt fragmentu filmu instruktażowego) plus the scoping dimension (zakres czasu). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as get_document or search_documents.

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 the tool is used when a specific time range is known, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like get_document or search_documents. Usage must be inferred entirely.

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