get_plain_text_transcript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is plain text without timestamps and explains the aggressive_dedup parameter's effect. However, it does not mention error handling, authentication, rate limits, or the exact return type, which would be helpful for a tool with no annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by an Args section. Every line adds value, with no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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 description covers the core functionality and parameter semantics, but lacks details about output format (e.g., whether it returns a string), error cases, or how it relates to the sibling transcript tools. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, it leaves some gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by defining both parameters: video_url as the YouTube video URL and aggressive_dedup as a flag for cleaner text. The explanations are clear and add meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and default value, though 'aggressive' could be more explicit.

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 tool's function: extracting a clean plain text transcript without timestamps, optimized for AI analysis. The verb+resource (Extract + plain text transcript) is specific, and the 'without timestamps' detail differentiates it from likely sibling transcript tools.

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 for AI analysis when a clean transcript without timestamps is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over sibling tools like get_youtube_transcript or get_youtube_transcript_ytdlp, nor does it state any exclusions.

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