youtube-to-markdown

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 including a transcript 'if available', which hints at conditional behavior, but doesn't explain what happens when a transcript isn't available (e.g., error, fallback, or partial output). It also omits details like rate limits, authentication needs, or output format specifics, leaving gaps for a tool that performs conversion.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Convert a YouTube video to markdown') and adds a key detail ('including transcript if available'). There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and no complex annotations.

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 (conversion with conditional transcript inclusion), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or output structure. It meets the basic requirement but leaves significant gaps that could hinder effective use by an AI agent.

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% coverage with a single parameter 'url' clearly described. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as URL format requirements or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: converting a YouTube video to markdown, including transcript if available. It specifies the verb 'convert' and resource 'YouTube video', making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'audio-to-markdown' or 'webpage-to-markdown', which handle different input types but share the same output format.

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 sibling tools like 'audio-to-markdown' (which might handle audio from YouTube) or 'webpage-to-markdown' (which could process YouTube pages), nor does it specify prerequisites such as video accessibility or transcript availability. Usage is implied by the tool name and description alone.

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