List Podcast Episodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals that unpublished episodes are included and that results are ordered newest-first, and it clarifies the return format ('full episode records as JSON'), which is not otherwise specified. This adds meaningful expectations for the caller.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately state the key scoping details ('all episodes', 'newest first', 'including unpublished ones') and the return type ('full episode records as JSON'). Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (0 parameters) and the existing rich annotations, the description adequately covers the essential behavior: what is listed, the ordering, inclusion of unpublished items, and the return format. The only omission is a note about pagination or limits, but for a tool with no parameters and a stated 'all episodes' scope, this is not a significant gap.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information (since there are none to describe), but that is not a deficiency in this case.

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 function: 'List all podcast episodes on the site, newest first, including unpublished ones.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('podcast episodes'), and distinguishes itself from sibling list tools (e.g., list_events, list_pages) by naming the exact resource and adding ordering and inclusion of unpublished items.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: whenever all podcast episodes are needed, with a specific ordering and inclusion of unpublished content. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the comprehensive scope ('all episodes') effectively implies that for a single episode or other resources, different tools are appropriate. This is just short of the 'explicit alternatives' bar.

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