get_episode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is helpful. However, it does not address behavior around ambiguous input combinations (e.g., what if both title and series are supplied), error handling, or data source freshness, leaving some gaps.

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 immediately states the action and resource, then lists return fields. Every word adds value, with 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?

Despite the schema covering parameter definitions, the description does not explain how to uniquely identify an episode when all parameters are optional. It also lacks any return-structure details, and with no output schema the agent is left unsure whether to provide a title alone or series+season+episode. This ambiguity is a critical gap for a tool whose entire purpose is retrieving a specific episode.

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 input schema fully describes all four parameters with example values and allowed series abbreviations, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'Star Trek episode' and enumerates the exact content fields (synopsis, writer, director, stardate, guest cast). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_episodes or get_starship, which target different resources or scopes.

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 when details of a specific episode are needed, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like list_episodes or search_memory_alpha. There are no stated exclusions or complementary tool references.

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