Longhand

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns comprehensive episode data including events, diff, and file state, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like response size, error conditions, or authentication requirements.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists the included components. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for a read-only retrieval tool. It explains what data is returned, but doesn't cover response format, error handling, or performance characteristics that would be helpful for a tool returning 'full detail' with potentially large data structures.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description compensates well by explaining what the 'episode_id' parameter represents ('one episode by episode_id'). It doesn't provide format details, but for a single parameter tool, this gives sufficient semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 with specific verb ('get') and resource ('episode'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it retrieves 'full detail for one episode' rather than lists or searches. It explicitly mentions what's included: referenced events, diff, and reconstructed file state.

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 context by stating it's for 'one episode by episode_id', suggesting it should be used when you have a specific episode identifier. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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