get_transcript

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds substantial behavioral context: Whisper fallback requirements (yt-dlp, huggingface transformers, OPENAI_API_KEY), ordering of subtitle sources for local files, and supported platforms. No contradiction with annotations, and it enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and dependencies.

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 well-structured: core purpose first, then efficiency comparison, fallback details, and supported sources. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds value. However, it is slightly verbose; the list of platforms could be shortened or referenced, but overall it is appropriate for the complexity.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by stating 'Returns timestamped transcript entries with speaker identification.' It covers supported sources, fallback logic, and optional configuration for Whisper. With high schema coverage and annotations, the description is thorough enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not repeat param details but adds context about when options apply (only to Whisper fallback) and the role of 'initialPrompt' for fixing proper nouns. This adds value beyond the schema's raw descriptions.

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 starts with 'Extract only the transcript from a video URL,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'analyze_video' by noting it is faster when only the transcript is needed, making the purpose clear and differentiating it from alternatives.

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 explicitly states 'Faster than analyze_video when you only need the transcript,' providing a clear context for when to use this tool. It also details supported platforms and fallback mechanisms. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if analysis beyond transcript is needed), so it misses a minor exclusion.

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