find-filters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, non-mutating nature is understood. The description adds a small amount of extra context, such as 'personal filters' and the query syntax examples, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like response format or pagination. With annotations handling the safety profile, a 3 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a useful example of filter query syntax. Every word earns its place—no filler or 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and robust annotations, the description is fully complete. It explains the domain concept (filters) with examples, making it easy for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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%, and the schema already explains the 'search' parameter thoroughly, including partial and case-insensitive matching. The description only reiterates the two modes (list or search) without adding new parameter-level detail. Since the schema carries the full weight, 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List all personal filters or search for filters by name.' The verb 'list' and 'search' with the resource 'filters' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like find-projects or find-tasks. It additionally clarifies what filters are (saved custom views with query syntax), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clear usage context: you can either retrieve all filters or search by name, and it explains the concept of filters with examples. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it. Given the context is clear and no exclusions are needed, this merits a 4.

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