get_episode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states that it fetches an episode by ID but doesn't disclose behavior beyond that—no mention of what happens with invalid IDs, whether it returns the full episode or partial data, or related entries. The nested relationship to tags (get_entry_tags exists) is unexplored.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action. No waste. It could slightly benefit from mentioning it's for a single episode vs list_episodes, but for a simple getter the brevity is reasonable.

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?

This is a simple 1-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description is bare-minimum: it states what it does but provides no context about the episode entity structure, what fields to expect in the response, or how it relates to list_episodes/create_episode/update_episode siblings. Adequate but could add modest context.

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% with the id parameter documented as 'エントリID (UUID)' in the schema itself. The single parameter is fully described by the schema, and the description confirms it's used by ID. Little ambiguity remains, so baseline 3-4 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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?

Description 'エピソードを取得 (IDで指定)' clearly states the verb (取得/get) and resource (エピソード/episode) with parameter scope (by ID). It distinguishes from list_episodes which would be the plural variant, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the name pattern: get_X retrieves a single entry by ID, contrasting with list_X which presumably lists all. However, there's no explicit mention of when to use this vs list_episodes, no context about when listing vs fetching single makes sense, and no error scenarios or prerequisites stated.

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