Get Saved Filter

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as permissions, error handling, or return behavior beyond restating the resource and parameter. This does not contradict the annotation, but it offers no extra transparency.

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, concise sentence (10 words) that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simplicity, one parameter, an output schema, and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is largely sufficient. However, it does not offer comparison with sibling tools or mention potential error cases, leaving a minor gap in guidance.

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 100% for the single parameter (filter_id). The tool description's 'by id' adds no new meaning over the schema's 'Saved filter identifier' and minimum value, 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('a saved Yandex Tracker issue filter') and parameter ('by id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like filter_create, filter_update, and filter_find_issues, which have different purposes.

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 its usage: retrieve a saved filter by its identifier. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., filter_find_issues for finding issues in a filter), nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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