get_clean_transcript

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full burden. It mentions using SponsorBlock data, but does not disclose behavior if SponsorBlock data is unavailable, rate limits, error conditions, or return format. The description lacks transparency about dependencies and potential failures.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key differentiator.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose but omits behavioral details such as what happens when SponsorBlock data is missing, output format, or potential errors. It is partially complete but leaves gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter names and descriptions. The description adds the context of SponsorBlock but no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides meaning.

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', the resource 'YouTube video transcript', and specifies the filtering of sponsor reads, intros, outros, self-promotion, and filler using SponsorBlock. It also highlights the use case for summarization, distinguishing it from the sibling 'get_transcript' tool.

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 suggests it is 'Ideal for summarization', implying a use case, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like 'get_transcript' for raw transcripts or 'search_transcript' for searching. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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