youtube_transcript_doctor

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is free, makes one unauthenticated request to YouTube, and checks specific configuration items (caption clients, transcription key, yt-dlp). This is valuable beyond annotations, though it does not describe return format or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a brief note on cost and request behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it checks, that it is free, and that it makes one unauthenticated request. It lacks explicit mention of return value shape, but the simple nature of the tool makes this a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description adds no parameter information (there is none to add), and the schema already fully documents that no parameters are accepted. No gap exists.

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 as a diagnostic/healthcheck: it checks which caption clients answer, whether a transcription key is configured, and whether yt-dlp is installed. This distinguishes it from siblings like youtube_transcript (which likely fetches transcripts) and youtube_search (which searches videos). The verb 'check' is specific and the resource scope is clear.

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 when to use this tool: as a pre-flight check to verify server capabilities before using transcript-related tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer that this is a capability probe, not a data-fetching tool. Sibling names reinforce the distinction.

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