list_episodes

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true is complemented by a detailed exposition of response-size budget, degradation semantics, truncation markers, and conditional budget_chars. The description also discloses special-case behavior (literal '@auto' resolution, no warning). This is transparent about the tool's behavior beyond the schema.

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 technically dense but effective numerically; the leading sentence furnishes the purpose ('dashboard display') and the exotic details (budget, ref) are packed after. A slight con: it jumps into bug/history references (bug-255, v2.4.7) that might confuse a simple agent, but the structure is front-loaded.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by explaining the response layout (summary/keywords truncation, budget_chars presence, ref expansion). It also cross-references get_contents and export_data for full data, so the agent knows how to recover details. The complexity of the tool is well covered.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions, but the tool description adds significant semantic depth, particularly for project_id: explaining the '@auto' sentinel, resolution edge cases, and referring to list_memories for same semantics. This goes well beyond the generic schema description.

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?

States the verb 'list' with a specific resource ('archived episodes for an agent') and qualifies the scope ('for dashboard display'). It distinguishes itself from list_memories and mentions export_data for full keyword data. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives for the list function; it clarifies what it is not for related tools.

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 when-to-use context (dashboard display) and directs the agent to alternative tools for expansion (get_contents) and full data (export_data). Yet it still lacks a formal exclusion framework (e.g., 'use export_data when full keywords are needed') in the imperative; but the info about ref and keywords hint is present.

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