segment_episodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the algorithmic basis (percentile thresholds on feature speed) but does not say whether segments are returned inline or written to disk, whether original data is preserved, or how episode/feature selection behaves.

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 compact sentences with the core operation front-loaded and the use case trailing. Nothing is repeated or wasted, and no structural clutter is present.

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 no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and a moderately complex operation, the description should clarify what the result looks like and how episode/feature parameters scope the work. It omits both, so an agent can form an intent but lacks enough to call it confidently with correct arguments.

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 0% and all four parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only obliquely hints at the 'feature' parameter through 'feature-speed' and never explains path, episode scoping, or what min_frames controls, leaving most parameter meaning to guesswork.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Split episodes into moving/idle segments') plus the mechanism ('feature-speed percentiles'), which no sibling tool replicates. It is clearly distinguishable from validate_dataset or plan_windows, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 second sentence gives two downstream use cases (phase labelling, trimming dead time), which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, there is no guidance on when not to use it, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives for segmentation-adjacent tasks like plan_windows.

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