research_episode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'Read', indicating a non-destructive operation, but it does not mention input/output behavior, side effects, or what a 'cited local source pack' entails.

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 single-sentence description is short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits essential details that a longer description should provide.

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 two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. An agent cannot determine expected inputs, return values, or operational context from 'Read a cited local source pack' alone.

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 0% and the description names no parameters. It does not explain what 'topic' or 'research_pack' mean, how they relate, or which one is required, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid call.

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 'Read a cited local source pack' provides a verb and a resource, and distinguishes itself from the create/generate/write siblings by being a read operation. However, the phrase 'cited local source pack' is undefined and it does not clearly explain the tool's role in episode research.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_episode, write_script, or qa_episode. The only hint is the name 'research_episode', which implies a research phase, but the description itself offers no usage context.

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