get_transcript_tool

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

The description discloses key behavior: obtaining transcript with timestamps and optional Whisper fallback. However, it omits details about authentication, rate limits, or error handling when captions are unavailable (e.g., falls back to Whisper only if flag is true). With no annotations, the description could be more explicit about edge cases.

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 exceptionally concise with no redundant information. The main purpose is stated upfront, followed by a clear parameters list. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 presence of an output schema (which likely documents return format), the description covers the essential inputs and fallback behavior. It could mention that the result includes timestamps inline, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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 description compensates for zero schema coverage by explaining each parameter's purpose, defaults, and usage. For example, 'url' is described as 'YouTube video URL or video ID', and the fallback parameter's behavior is clarified. Adding example values could improve it further.

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 retrieves the full transcript with timestamps from YouTube. While it distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search_transcript' by focusing on full retrieval, it does not explicitly differentiate use cases.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search_transcript'. The description only explains parameters but lacks context for tool selection.

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