List podcast episodes

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description earns credit for adding what they cannot: results come from local storage and no audio is fetched, plus the return shape (episodes and count). It stops short of describing pagination limits or behavior when a feed has no tracked episodes.

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?

Two tight sentences: ordering and scope first, then purpose, alternatives, and return contract. Every clause carries information an agent needs and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description supplies the return contract (episodes plus count from local storage, no audio fetched) and the ordering guarantee. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters including the status enum and limit bounds are fully documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description alludes to feed and lifecycle scoping, matching two of the three parameters, but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema and says nothing about limit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list tracked podcast episodes) plus two scoping dimensions and a default ordering (newest published first). It is immediately distinguishable from list_podcast_feeds, which the description names as the tool for feed settings.

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?

Explicitly says what the tool is for (obtaining episode IDs, checking download/transcription state) and routes two alternatives: list_podcast_feeds for feed settings, poll_podcast_feed to refresh observations. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both present.

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