List texttracks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the content returned ('with their languages and which one is active'), but omits pagination behavior, ordering, or error conditions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource and the key returned fields with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool with one parameter.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete: it identifies what is returned (languages, active track). It could still mention pagination or empty-result behavior, but no critical detail for correct invocation is missing.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already fully documents video_id. The description does not add syntax or constraints beyond noting the tracks belong to a video, which is the expected baseline when 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 states a clear verb+resource ('List the caption and subtitle tracks on a video') and specifies the scope. It distinguishes itself from mutation siblings like upload_texttrack/update_texttrack/delete_texttrack by its read-only listing action, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_transcript or list_chapters.

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 only says what the tool does, with no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives. The intended usage is implied by the purpose, but there is no routing information to help an agent choose this over get_transcript or list_chapters.

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