graph_episodes

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

Annotations already cover the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needed to add context. It adds nothing about ordering, pagination, or what an 'episode' actually is, leaving the semantics of the returned data unexplained.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though it is terse to the point of under-specification.

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?

For a simple one-optional-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves the definition of 'episode', ordering, and result limits unexplained.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. 'For a repository' loosely maps to the single 'repo' parameter, but no format, identifier convention, or optionality guidance is given.

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?

It states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recorded graph episodes and their labels') scoped to a repository, so the agent knows what it returns. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from graph-related siblings like graph_history_stats, graph_as_of, or query_graph.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus the many other graph-read siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The read-only nature is only implied by 'List'.

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