Transcribe User Reels

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the bar for transparency is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it downloads reels, runs Whisper via the caption command, and generates SRT files. It also explains the keep_videos flag's effect on cleanup. No contradiction with annotations; it enriches the safety and workflow picture.

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 purpose statement, a process summary, an Args section, and a Returns section. It's slightly longer than necessary and includes a ctx parameter not in the schema, which could cause confusion, but every sentence contributes useful information. Front-loaded and organized.

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 complex tool that downloads, processes, and returns multiple artifacts, the description covers the workflow, parameters, and return structure in detail. It lists all return fields and their types. Missing are potential prerequisites or error conditions, but given its thoroughness and the presence of an output schema, it's nearly 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly by documenting username with an example, max_reels with a default and purpose, and keep_videos with its behavior. It even adds ctx (though not in schema) for progress reporting. This fully clarifies the meaning of every schema parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource-output statement: 'Download and transcribe Instagram reels to SRT subtitles.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_user_reels (which only fetches reels) and transcribe_reel (which handles a single reel). The scope and deliverable are unambiguous.

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 its usage context: it processes multiple reels (with max_reels) and produces subtitle files. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the clear purpose and parameter details provide enough context. No exclusions are mentioned, so it's clear but not fully explicit.

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