Find Issues by Saved Filter

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already covers the safe-read nature of the tool. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., pagination behavior, result limits, or differences from a direct issue search), but it also does not contradict the annotation. With the annotation in place, a midpoint score is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently captures the core action and result. It contains no redundant filler and every word adds value.

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 rich input schema, the readOnlyHint annotation, and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for basic invocation. It lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling search tools, but that gap is more about usage guidelines than completeness of the tool's contract.

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?

All five parameters (filter_id, page, per_page, fields, include_description) have descriptions in the input schema, providing 100% coverage. The tool description itself does not elaborate on parameters, but the schema fully documents their meaning, so the baseline of 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 clearly states that the tool executes a saved Yandex Tracker filter and returns matching issues. The verb 'execute' and the resource 'saved filter' make the function explicit, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like filter_get (which retrieves filter metadata) and issues_find (which searches issues directly).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as issues_find or filter_get. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer from the name that a saved filter_id is required. There is no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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