get_captions

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 effectively reveals key traits: it's a read operation ('List'), specifies a cost ('Costs 200 quota units to download'), and implies a list output. However, it lacks details on error conditions (e.g., invalid video_id), rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by cost and parameter details. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool, the second adds critical behavioral context (cost), and the third clarifies the single parameter. No wasted words.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, cost, and parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks context on authentication or error handling, which could be important for a tool with a cost implication.

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 adds meaning by explaining that 'video_id' refers to 'The video ID', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's type definition. Since there's only one parameter, this is sufficient, but it doesn't provide format examples or constraints.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('available caption tracks for a video'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_video_details' or 'list_comments' by focusing on caption tracks, not general video metadata or comments.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the video must be public or owned by the user) or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_video_details' that might include captions. The only contextual hint is the cost note, which is not usage guidance.

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