list_episodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it retrieves a list, with no mention of default behaviors, pagination semantics, filtering capabilities beyond the schema, or any side effects/read-only guarantee. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in a system with many mutation tools.

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 with no wasted words. It's appropriately minimal but doesn't over-exploit brevity at the cost of substantive context.

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 6 parameters including a nested filter object and a profile_id with complex scoping rules. With no annotations and no output schema, the description provides only a minimal one-line purpose. Given the availability of sibling episode tools (create/get/update/delete_episode) and the parameter complexity, a richer description could clarify when filtering is needed, how profile scoping works, and what the response structure looks like.

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%, so all 6 parameters have schema-level descriptions. The description adds nothing beyond the schema. The filter parameter's semantics ('カラム名: 値') is defined only in schema. With full coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate - the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Japanese description 'エピソード一覧を取得' (get episode list) clearly states the verb+resource purpose. However, it doesn't add scope/filtering nuance that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_custom_entries, list_career_entries, or get_episode, which are all conceptually similar list operations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention it's for listing episodes specifically (as opposed to other resource listings) or any use context. The profile_id parameter description hints at scoping but that's parameter-level, not usage guidance.

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