show_backlog_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does a good job: it discloses that it never mutates (dry-run), that ordering is shortest-first, and what the defaults are. It does not mention specifics about max_results behavior (env var default) in the prose, but that is covered in the schema. Behavior regarding episode selection across saved shows is implied but clear enough.

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 two sentences, front-loads the most important safety and scope information (dry-run only, never mutates), and packs defaults, ordering logic, and use case without waste. Every phrase earns its place.

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 read-only planning tool with no output schema, the description covers the key context: scope (unlistened episodes across saved shows), ordering (shortest-first), defaults, and mutation safety. As with the parameter dimension, it could add expected output format or response shape since there is no output schema, but the response_format parameter partially covers that, so the gap is modest.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds some interpretive value (shortest-first strategy, queue-clearing intent) but does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('plan'), resource ('podcast backlog'), and clear behavior: dry-run only, ordered shortest-first, defaults of 20 episodes per show and 20 shows. It is distinguishable from siblings like show_backlog_report, but does not explicitly name that sibling or differentiate itself, which is a minor gap.

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 conveys when to use it: when planning podcast backlog clearing with quick wins (shortest-first). It explicitly notes the dry-run nature ('dry-run only, never mutates'), which subtly signals it is for previewing rather than executing changes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like show_backlog_report or mark_episode_played_plan, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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