get_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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Get video transcript' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether authentication is required, rate limits apply, what happens with invalid URLs, or the format of the returned transcript. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 extremely concise at three words, front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted text. Every word ('Get', 'video', 'transcript') earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (fetching transcripts from YouTube), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the transcript output looks like (e.g., text format, timestamps), error conditions, or dependencies on external services. For a tool with these gaps, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('url' as YouTube video URL and 'language' as optional language code). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as example URLs or supported language codes. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get video transcript' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('video transcript'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what type of video (YouTube is only implied by the parameter schema) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'translate_transcript' or 'summarize_video', leaving the scope somewhat vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'get_video_info' (which might include transcript data) or 'translate_transcript', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a valid YouTube URL. Without any context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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