get_viewed_episodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'retrieves' viewed episodes, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether it returns all episodes or paginated results. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter and return details. It's efficient with no wasted words, though the use of ':param' and ':return' markers is slightly informal for MCP standards but doesn't hinder clarity.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details like response format (beyond 'dictionary'), error cases, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, more context would improve completeness.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'myshows_item_id', specifying it's 'The ID of the TV show to retrieve episodes for.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's type (integer). With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., valid ID ranges).

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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('viewed episodes of a TV show'), specifying it's for episodes that have been viewed. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_calendar_episodes' (calendar-based) or 'search_shows' (searching), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'check_episode' or 'uncheck_episode' which might involve viewing status.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'check_episode' (which might mark episodes as viewed) or 'get_myshows_profile_shows_list' (which could list shows with viewing data), leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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