list_competition_episodes

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the action. It does not mention pagination, required submission state, permissions, or any other behavioral details beyond the word 'List'.

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 clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is not overly verbose, though it is perhaps too sparse to be considered genuinely helpful beyond the basic operation.

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?

For a simple one-parameter list operation this is minimally viable: an agent can reasonably infer the call from the schema and description. However, with no output schema or annotations, it omits what 'simulation episodes' are, how the submission_id should be sourced, and what the response looks like, leaving clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0% and submission_id has an empty description. The tool description only repeats that episodes belong to a submission, which adds little beyond the parameter name and does not explain how to obtain or format the ID.

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 names a specific action ('List') and object ('simulation episodes'), and links them to a submission, so an agent can tell what the endpoint does. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like download_competition_episode_logs, so it does not reach full differentiation.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools or prerequisites are mentioned. An agent would have to infer that submission_id should come from a submission-listing tool like list_competition_submissions, which is not stated.

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