Query stashed result with jq

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the input is a previously stashed payload, the operation extracts only what is needed, and examples show the expected output shapes. It does not cover failure modes such as invalid filters or expired handles, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the triggering condition before the filter examples. Every sentence is relevant, though the example filter list partially duplicates the schema's `filter` description, so it is slightly redundant rather than wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so ('return the focused subset'), and it explains the stash lifecycle context that makes the handle meaningful. Missing are notes on what happens with an invalid filter or a stale handle, which would matter for a two-required-param query tool.

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%: both `handle` (with a UUID pattern) and `filter` are fully documented in the schema, including examples. The description adds only the framing that the handle comes from a prior tool result, and its filter examples largely duplicate those already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: run a jq filter against a previously stashed tool result, returning a focused subset. The concept of a 'stash' is defined well enough (a JSON document produced by a prior tool) that it is clearly distinct from the sibling jq_stash_stats, which reports on stashes rather than querying them.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: use this when a prior tool returned `{stashed:true, handle, shape, sample_filters}` instead of the full payload. That is a strong, checkable when-to-use signal. It does not name alternatives (e.g., jq_stash_stats) or state any when-not cases, which keeps it short of a 5.

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