list_episode_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read-only list operation and indicates the output fields, but it does not disclose behavior such as what happens when no series_id or episode_file_ids are supplied, whether results are filtered, or how missing/invalid IDs are handled. This is adequate for a simple list tool but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that names the action, resource, scope, and return fields. Every part adds value; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the key context: what is listed, for which series, and what fields are returned. There is no output schema, so including the return fields is helpful. It does not explain behavior when no parameters are given, but the schema already documents parameter optionality and the tool is straightforward.

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 input schema already documents both series_id and episode_file_ids. The description only loosely aligns with series_id via 'for a series' and does not add meaning for episode_file_ids beyond the schema, which is acceptable under the baseline for full coverage.

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 ('List') and a clear resource ('episode files on disk'), and specifies the scope ('for a series') plus the key fields returned (path, size, quality, languages, release group). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_episodes (episode metadata) and get_episode_file (single file fetch), even without naming 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 phrase 'for a series' provides implied context for when to use the tool, and the mention of 'episode files on disk' hints at the file-inspection use case. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as list_episodes or get_episode_file, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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