list-captions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It adds the cost of 50 quota units, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or any pagination behavior. The cost is a plus, but other transparency gaps remain.

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 that efficiently states the purpose and the quota cost. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. This is a model of conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no nested objects), but there is no output schema. The description does not explain what the listing returns (e.g., caption track metadata, languages, IDs). For a list operation, specifying the return value would enhance completeness, but the description is not misleading or inadequate for the task.

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 coverage is 100%, with the only parameter videoId described as 'Video ID'. The description adds no new meaning beyond reinforcing that the operation applies to a video. With such high schema coverage, a baseline of 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 action ('List'), the resource ('caption tracks'), and the scope ('for a video'). It uses the specific verb 'list', which aligns with the tool name, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload-caption, download-caption, and delete-caption.

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 usage: when you need to enumerate caption tracks for a given video. It doesn't explicitly state when to use an alternative, but the clear scope and naming make the context evident. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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