list_texttracks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that the result includes languages and the active track, which is useful context, but it does not disclose further behavioral details like response shape or pagination.

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?

One clear, front-loaded sentence that names the operation, the resource, and the key output details without any filler. Every word 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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only list tool with strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains what the response will convey (languages and active track), and no output schema exists to fill that gap. It could mention response format or edge cases, but the low complexity makes this a minor 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter video_id is described as 'Video id.' The description does not add any meaning beyond that, but with full schema coverage there is little the description needs to compensate for. 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('caption and subtitle tracks on a video'), and the key output attributes (languages and active status). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like upload_texttrack, update_texttrack, and delete_texttrack.

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 phrase 'on a video' gives clear context: use this when you need the track list for a specific video. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only listing purpose is obvious and contrasts cleanly with the mutation and transcript sibling tools.

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