list_takes

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds only the hint that takes are 'numbered' (indexed), and says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether empty take lists are possible. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the marginal value here is thin.

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?

It is short with no filler, but the terseness is under-specification rather than efficiency: a verbless noun phrase cannot front-load intent. A single well-formed sentence naming the action and the episode scope would cost no more space and be far clearer.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of information about what a 'take' is or what the response contains (indices, statuses, ordering), and it supplies none of that. For a simple one-parameter read tool the bar is low, but this leaves the agent unable to describe the return.

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% for the single slug parameter, which includes an example format, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The phrase 'of an episode' vaguely corroborates that an episode identifier is required but adds no syntax or scoping detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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 fragment "The numbered takes of an episode" names the resource and its scope but supplies no verb, effectively restating the tool name list_takes. It gives no signal distinguishing it from siblings such as list_episodes, pick_take, qc_take, or open_take, so an agent must infer that this is a read/list operation.

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 call this versus alternatives. An agent is left to guess whether this is a precursor to pick_take or qc_take, or whether it overlaps with read_episode. Nothing states prerequisites or exclusions.

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