reverse_query_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It signals a read-only query operation and the 'summary-first narrowing' hint implies it returns a summary-level view, which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, limits, or any caveats beyond what the name and schema imply.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every word adds value, and the usage note is immediately actionable.

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 7 parameters, no parameter documentation, no annotations, and only a terse usage hint, the description is too thin for an agent to confidently invoke this tool with the correct filters. The output schema exists and covers return values somewhat, but the input-side ambiguity remains significant.

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 0%, and the description does not enumerate or explain host_contains, path_contains, method_in, status_in, limit, offset, or the meaning of capture_id beyond the phrase 'a reverse capture_id'. 'Route-level filters' is too generic to compensate for the complete lack of per-parameter documentation.

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 says 'Query imported entries using route-level filters', which gives a specific verb, resource, and a distinguishing scope: imported entries rather than live captures. It also calls out 'summary-first narrowing', which suggests its role in a larger reverse-workflow. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the 'imported' qualifier separates it from live-entry tools.

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?

'Use this as the summary-first narrowing step for a reverse capture_id' is an explicit usage directive that tells the agent when this tool fits into the workflow. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it does not earn a 5, but the context is clear and actionable.

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