get_timed_transcript

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions fetching a transcript with timestamps but omits critical details such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output format looks like (e.g., structured data vs. raw text). This is inadequate for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 complexity (4 parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like parameter usage, behavioral traits, or output expectations, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 low (25%), with only the 'url' parameter documented. The description does not compensate by explaining the semantics of 'lang', 'start', or 'end' parameters, leaving them undocumented. It implies timestamps but doesn't clarify if 'start' and 'end' relate to time ranges or other units.

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 action ('fetches') and resource ('transcript with timestamps'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_transcript' (likely without timestamps) and 'get_video_info' (different resource). However, it doesn't specify the source (YouTube) or fully differentiate from siblings beyond the timestamp aspect.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_transcript' or 'get_video_info'. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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