episodes

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, closed-world), so the description adds genuine behavior context: chronological ordering guarantees ('time-ordered, oldest first') and the fact that results are never ranked. The 'same block identity injects at boot' note explains a related constraint, though the return shape is not described.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition followed by usage triggers. Efficient, but the heavy jargon slightly reduces immediate parseability for an agent unfamiliar with the domain vocabulary.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, and usage triggers adequately. It could say more about the shape of an episode entry, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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% for the single 'hours' parameter, which already documents the look-back window and default of 24. The description's 'last N hours' restates the same concept without adding syntax or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (the episode tape) and states its scope precisely: events across ALL bodies of this identity within the last N hours. It distinguishes the behavior from a ranking tool ('never ranked'), though the metaphorical framing ('tape', 'bodies', 'sleeves') and lack of explicit sibling routing keep it from a 5.

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?

It gives two concrete when-to-use moments: mid-session catch-up on what other sleeves did since loading, and a nightly indexing pass. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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