youtube-digest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'video to text' with no details about output format, failure modes (e.g., missing subtitles), access requirements, or multi-language default behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to predict behavior beyond the basic function.

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 concise phrase with zero filler, front-loading the core function. It is appropriately brief, though it borders on under-specification; a bit more detail would make it a 5.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is just above minimum viable. It identifies the tool's function but omits any mention of return shape, edge cases, or output format. Given the low complexity, this is acceptable but not fully 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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already documents both parameters (url and language) with adequate descriptions. The description does not need to compensate for a coverage gap.

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?

Description uses a specific verb '提取' (extract) with a clear resource: YouTube video subtitles/transcript (视频字幕/文案). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like youtube-video-downloader (downloads video) and youtube-comment (extracts comments). The tool's function is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description only states what the tool does, with no contextual conditions, excluded cases, or explicit alternatives. An agent must infer usage purely from the name and description, relying on the schema for details.

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