transcript_youtube_fetch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and details fallback behavior (lang prefix matching, auto-generated ASR fallback, translation), which goes beyond a basic fetch. It does not cover failure modes or quotas, but the provided behavioral traits are meaningful.

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 front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, then enumerating parameter behaviors in a compact, scannable format. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return format (rendered as text, with specific format options including JSON structure). It covers all key parameters and their interactions (auto, translate, lang, format), making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could mention error cases (e.g., no transcript found) but this is a minor gap.

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 documents all five parameters. The description adds a concise summary of format options and default behavior, but it largely restates the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., prefix fallback, auto default) without adding new semantic depth beyond what is already present.

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 fetches a YouTube video transcript and renders it as text, naming the exact resource (YouTube video) and action (fetch). It also references the mirrored command, and the sibling tools (transcript_youtube_info, transcript_youtube_list_langs) are distinct in purpose, so there is no ambiguity.

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 explains configuration options like auto and translate, indicating when to use them. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., 'use transcript_youtube_info for metadata' or 'use list_langs to find available languages'), so usage guidance is implied rather than stated as a direct alternative.

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