show_episode_timeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does substantial work: it discloses the underlying API interaction (one paginated /shows/{id}/episodes walk), the approximate cost (🟡, several API calls), the ordering (chronological), and the detection algorithm with its output phrasing. It does not explicitly state read-only status or edge-case behavior (e.g., shows with a single episode), so some gaps remain.

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 dense sentences with no filler: purpose, distinguishing behavior, and quota each earn their place, and the purpose is front-loaded before operational detail. '[local-compute]' and '🟡' are compact signals that convey cost and computation location without elaboration.

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 description covers purpose, algorithm, ordering, and cost, which is strong for a read-style tool, but with no output schema or annotations it omits output shape details and the interaction between max_results truncation and gap detection. Edge cases (empty show, single-episode show) are also unaddressed. It is adequate for straightforward calls but leaves an agent guessing on boundary conditions.

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 high (80%), so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to gap_threshold_days by defining the gap against consecutive release dates and illustrating the callout format. It does not compensate for the undocumented max_results parameter, but the paginated-walk mention hints at how result limits interact with the API. Overall it enriches the most analytical parameter beyond the schema's one-line definition.

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 concrete operation (chronological episode listing for one show) and leads with the differentiating feature, hiatus-gap detection with explicit threshold semantics ('no episode in N days'). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_show_episodes, get_show_episodes, and shows_release_calendar, which lack the gap-analysis angle. The scope is unambiguous: exactly one show.

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 hiatus-detection feature implies the intended use case (analyzing a single show's release cadence), and the '[local-compute]' tag plus quota signal operational constraints. However, the description never names sibling alternatives or states when not to use this tool versus list_show_episodes or show_backlog_report. Selection is left to inference rather than explicit routing.

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