Get citation map

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds real context: a prerequisite sidecar condition, an explicit failure mode ('missing captures return an error'), and the shape of the result (separate transcript and screenshot lists with source-aware deep links). It does not discuss volume limits or deep-link expiry, so it falls just short of full disclosure.

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?

Four sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, routing to alternatives, return shape, prerequisite/error. Purpose and the key constraint are front-loaded with no filler or restatement of the title.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description compensates by summarizing the return value (transcript and screenshot lists with deep links). Combined with the documented prerequisite failure mode and named alternatives, an agent has everything needed to select and call this read-only tool correctly.

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 a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that slug is the saved item's folder slug and points to list_recent_uoinks and search_uoinks as sources. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the sidecar requirement, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read all stored transcript and screenshot citations') scoped to 'one saved capture', which immediately separates it from corpus-wide siblings. An agent can distinguish it from get_uoink_corpus and export_cited_range without opening any schema.

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?

It states the positive use case ('citation timing and source links without the full corpus') and names two explicit alternatives with the conditions that select them: get_uoink_corpus for Markdown, export_cited_range for a bounded cue-aligned export. It also gives a prerequisite ('Requires a saved video_id in the item's sidecar'), so when-not-to-use is inferable.

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