Obtener episodio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the return contents (air date and characters), which goes beyond what annotations provide. It does not discuss error behavior or edge cases, but given the rich annotations and simple nature of the tool, this is adequate.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. It avoids unnecessary words and clearly communicates the tool's purpose. There is no wasted content, and the key information (what it returns) is presented early.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is adequate. It states what the tool returns (episode with air date and characters), and the output schema is presumably available for details. The lack of error handling or null-result guidance is a minor gap that is common for such tools. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. However, the description does not mention the parameter at all. While 'episode_id' is self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation. It adds zero meaning beyond the parameter name itself.

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 clearly states the action (returns an episode), the specific resource (episode), and the key qualifier (by its id). It also lists what is returned (air date and characters), making it distinct from sibling tools like list_episodes, which would list multiple episodes. The verb+resource+scope is precise and immediately understandable.

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?

The description implies usage when you have an episode ID and need that episode's details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_episodes. There is no mention of when not to use it or reference to sibling tools. The guidance is implied by the phrase 'por su id' but not made explicit.

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