get_transcript

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the fallback chain (native captions → Whisper), the dependency requirements (yt-dlp, @huggingface/transformers, whisper CLI, or OPENAI_API_KEY), and the sidecar file preference for local files. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail error cases or rate limits.

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 with a clear opening sentence, followed by return format, performance comparison, fallback details, and supported platforms. It's slightly long but every sentence adds necessary information. The platform list is dense but necessary for the agent to know what URLs are supported.

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 (multiple platforms, fallback chain, dependencies), the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, when to use it, supported sources, and fallback behavior. It doesn't have an output schema, so the description's mention of 'timestamped transcript entries with speaker identification' is helpful. It could mention error scenarios (e.g., unsupported platform) but overall it's quite complete.

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 schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds context by explaining the fallback behavior and that options only apply to the Whisper fallback, which is not fully clear from the schema alone. It also clarifies the 'url' parameter's accepted formats (Loom share link, platform URLs, direct video URLs, local paths). This adds value beyond the schema.

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 extracts only the transcript from a video URL, with a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('transcript from a video URL'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it's faster than analyze_video when only the transcript is needed, and the supported platforms are enumerated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Faster than analyze_video when you only need the transcript.' It also details the fallback behavior (Whisper) and prerequisites (yt-dlp, API keys), which helps the agent decide if this tool is appropriate for the given URL type.

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