extract_shorts_clips

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool requires no API key, scans spoken transcripts for psychological hook triggers, and formats ready-to-paste timestamps. It does not cover edge cases like videos lacking transcripts, but the disclosed behavioral traits are substantive.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose, followed by a short paragraph with important operational context, then a compact parameter list. No redundant restatement of the schema; every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists (even though not shown), so the description need not explain return values in detail. It covers main inputs, behavior, and output format. The minor inconsistency between '30-60s' in the first line and the min_duration default of 20 seconds is a small gap in precision, but not a major omission.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates with an Args block explaining each parameter and its default ('default 20', 'default 60', 'default 5'). This provides real semantic meaning beyond the bare schema property names.

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?

States a specific deliverable ('Generate YouTube chapters and extract ... clips') and names the source material ('from transcripts'). It also specifies the output format ('timestamps ready to paste'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that only fetch transcripts or analytics.

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?

Implies clear usage context: it is the tool to use when you need Shorts/Reels candidates or chapters from transcript content, and the note that no YouTube API key is required adds practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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