get_transcript

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

No annotations are present, so the description should carry the burden. It says 'retrieves' but does not disclose pagination (next_cursor parameter), language handling default, or output format. The schema hints at pagination, but the description omits this behavioral trait.

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 a single sentence, very concise and to the point. However, it may be too terse given the complexity (pagination, language option). Still, it earns its place with no filler.

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 that an output schema exists (mentioned in context signals) and input schema covers all parameters, the description covers the core purpose. However, it lacks details on pagination behavior, language fallback, and comparison with siblings, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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%, and the descriptions for url, lang, and next_cursor are already informative. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves a YouTube video transcript, but lacks differentiation from sibling tools like get_timed_transcript or get_available_languages. The verb 'retrieves' and resource 'transcript' are specific, but without context on what format (plain vs timed) or scope, it's not fully distinguished.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. For example, get_timed_transcript might return timestamps, while this one might return plain text. The agent has no criteria to choose among them.

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