get_episodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some context: it lists supported episode types with an integer enum, mentions pagination with a max limit of 200, and notes that it returns a formatted list or error. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'List' but not explicit). The description compensates partially but leaves 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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by an enum list, and then details parameters and returns in a bullet-like format. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the enum into the purpose statement for faster scanning.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well and hints at returns, but lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of the 'formatted list'), error handling specifics, or behavioral traits like pagination behavior beyond limits. For a list tool with no annotations, more context on results would enhance completeness.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains each parameter: 'subject_id' as the ID of the subject, 'episode_type' as an optional filter with enum details, 'limit' with max and default values, and 'offset' with default. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, making parameters clear and actionable.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List episodes for a subject.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('episodes for a subject'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_episode_details' or 'browse_subjects,' which could provide similar or overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_episode_details' (for specific episodes) or 'browse_subjects' (for broader subject listings), leaving the agent to infer usage based on context alone. This lack of explicit comparison reduces clarity in tool selection.

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