get_episodefile_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not cover safety. It adds only the HTTP method/path, which is structural rather than a deeper behavioral trait like permissions, error cases, or response alternatives. No contradiction exists.

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 minimal and front-loaded: a one-line purpose, the endpoint, and the single parameter. Every piece contributes to invoking the tool correctly, with no redundant 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?

For a simple single-ID read operation, the description plus the annotations and output schema cover the essentials: what it reads, how to pass the ID, and the fact that it is safe/idempotent. It could be slightly richer by stating the expected return behavior, but the output schema mitigates that 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for what the schema doesn't say. It does add meaningful value by specifying that 'id' is a path parameter, which is necessary for correct invocation beyond the schema's bare 'integer' type and 'Id' title.

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 states a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('EpisodeFile') and includes the REST path with {id}, so an agent can tell it is a single-resource retrieval operation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like list_episodefile or get_episode_by_id, so it falls short of a top score.

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 rather than stated: the tool reads an EpisodeFile by its ID. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over list_episodefile or other get_*_by_id tools, so the agent must infer usage from the name and endpoint.

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