scrape_podcast

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. It mentions that the tool returns a transcript file path and implies a multi-step process (scraping, transcribing, then using other tools). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether scraping is destructive to existing data. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none provided), but it's incomplete for a tool with potential behavioral complexities.

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, with two sentences: the first states the core purpose and output, and the second provides usage guidance. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates key information. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose and guidelines more clearly.

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 complexity (scraping and transcribing with 4 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and basic workflow but misses details like error cases, performance expectations, or output format beyond 'transcript file path'. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify the format of 'query' or the implications of 'force'). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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's purpose: 'Scrape a podcast episode and transcribe it. Returns transcript file path.' This specifies the verb (scrape and transcribe) and resource (podcast episode), and mentions the output (transcript file path). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_podcast' or 'check_new_episodes', which might have overlapping scopes.

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 clear context for usage by mentioning related tools: 'Use get_transcript to read it, then save_summary after summarizing.' This guides the agent on workflow steps. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_podcast' or 'check_new_episodes', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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