get_episode_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful behavioral trait — that the result includes full media info — but does not mention error behavior on invalid IDs, whether media info analysis can be slow, or any other operational traits. The 'Get' verb clearly signals a read-only operation, which keeps this at an adequate level.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and adds the key value proposition ('full media info') without any filler. Every word earns its place; nothing extraneous.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool: one required numeric parameter with full schema coverage. The description's mention of 'full media info' partially compensates for the missing output schema. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit distinction from the closely related get_episode and list_episode_files, but for a simple ID-based getter, the description is nearly complete.

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%, with 'id' documented as 'Episode file id,' so the schema fully explains the parameter. The description adds no further parameter detail, but per the baseline for high schema coverage, no compensation is required. Score 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and a precise resource ('a single episode file'), and notes the return includes 'full media info.' The 'single' qualifier and 'file' resource implicitly differentiate it from list_episode_files and get_episode, though it does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_episode, list_episode_files, or update_episode_files. The word 'single' weakly implies it is for retrieving one specific file by ID, but no context, exclusions, or alternative routing is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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