get_transcript

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving transcripts but doesn't describe what happens if no transcript exists, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or the format/scope of returned data. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that interacts with external APIs.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that clearly communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and interaction with an external service (YouTube), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the transcript returns, error handling, availability constraints, or any behavioral aspects needed for reliable use by an AI agent.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (url and lang with their descriptions and default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('YouTubeの字幕' - YouTube subtitles/transcripts) with the input source specified ('URLまたは動画IDから' - from URL or video ID). It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't need to distinguish from siblings since there are none.

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, prerequisites, or limitations. It simply states what the tool does without context about appropriate use cases or constraints.

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