get_user_saved_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 merely states the action without any details on authentication requirements, pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. The agent cannot infer whether this operation is read-only, requires OAuth tokens, or how results are returned.

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, well-structured sentence that is easy to parse. However, it is too sparse – it under-specifies crucial details, which is more a case of under-specification than efficient conciseness. Still, it is not bloated and follows a clear 'verb + object' structure, so it earns a moderate score.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only the basic purpose, omitting any explanation of return format, pagination semantics, authentication context, or error conditions. Given the complexity (simple read with pagination), the description is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly without external knowledge.

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 schema covers 0% of parameters with descriptions, and the tool description does not compensate. It does not explain the meaning or usage of limit, offset, or access_token. While their names imply obvious semantics (pagination and token), the absence of any explanation in either the schema or description leaves the agent to guess at defaults, formats, or required authorization.

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' and the resource 'user's saved podcast episodes,' which clearly identifies what it does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_saved_tracks or get_user_saved_shows by specifying the media type (episodes). This is not a tautology; it adds the 'saved' and 'podcast' qualifiers.

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 the many sibling tools for saved content (tracks, albums, shows, audiobooks). There is no mention of prerequisites, authentication requirements, or alternative scenarios. The agent is left to infer that it should be used when saved podcast episodes are needed.

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