get_episode_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the kind of information returned but does not mention any side effects, error conditions, or data source behavior. It mentions 'if using Dexcom API' without explaining the alternative, and does not clarify what the 'data' parameter does beyond 'persistence layer integration.'

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 entire description is one sentence plus a compact Args list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant information.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, requiring the description to compensate. It provides a high-level summary of the returned context but does not describe the response structure, error handling, or the behavior of the data parameter in depth.

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 schema has 0% property description coverage, but the description adds definitions for all four parameters: minutes as a time period with range and default, low/high as thresholds with defaults, and data as optional external readings. However, the explanations are terse and leave ambiguity about the integration.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('detailed context for each glucose episode') and enumerates the aspects (what led to it, severity, recovery). This distinguishes it from siblings like detect_episodes, which likely identifies episodes rather than detailing them.

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 implies usage for retrieving episode details but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like detect_episodes or get_glucose_readings. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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