get_flashcardsGet reviewed, evidence-linked episode flashcards with bounded cursor pagination. No scoring or engagement coercion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| meta | Yes | ||
| operation | Yes | ||
| schema_version | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds behavioral context: bounded cursor pagination, and that flashcards are 'reviewed' and 'evidence-linked'. No contradictions.
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?
Two concise sentences with front-loaded key information. No redundant phrases. Every word adds value.
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?
With an output schema present, description need not detail return values. However, given the low parameter coverage, some additional explanation of the required 'slug' parameter would improve completeness. Nonetheless, the description together with annotations and schema provides adequate context for an 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?
Input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'bounded cursor pagination' but does not explain the required 'slug' parameter or the semantics of 'limit' and 'cursor'. Compensation for low coverage is insufficient.
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?
Description clearly states 'Get reviewed, evidence-linked episode flashcards' with specific verb and resource. Qualifiers like 'reviewed' and 'evidence-linked' distinguish it from sibling tools like get_clip or get_episode.
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?
Description includes a usage caveat ('No scoring or engagement coercion') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_clip or get_episode. The context is implied by the tool's purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource: clip, episode, flashcards, reading trail, transcript segment, and episode clips. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., get_clip, get_episode, list_episode_clips).
6 tools is appropriate for the scope of a content retrieval server covering episodes, clips, transcripts, flashcards, and reading trails.
The tool set is read-only with no create/update/delete operations. Notably missing a list_episodes tool, which limits basic browsing.