transcript_youtube_fetch

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 declares the tool 'Read-only', explains default behaviors for format, lang, auto, translate, and mentions prefix fallback for language matching. It does not cover error cases or rate limits, but the disclosed traits are sufficient for a fetch tool.

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 at three sentences, front-loading the main purpose and read-only nature, then systematically covering parameter details. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description explains all parameters with defaults and behavior, but does not describe the return format beyond 'rendered as text' or cover failure scenarios. Given the tool's simplicity and sibling context, it is fairly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining prefix fallback for lang and clarifying the effect of auto and translate beyond the schema's descriptions. It also ties to a CLI command for familiarity.

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 verb ('Fetch') and the resource ('transcript for a YouTube video') and specifies the output format ('rendered as text'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on fetching the transcript as text, whereas siblings are for info and listing languages.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings or alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. However, it implicitly conveys its purpose by detailing parameters like lang, auto, translate, which guide usage. Still, it lacks a clear 'when to use' statement.

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