filter_complete

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the tool's safety profile. The description adds the prerequisite of an active analysis session, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose details like error behavior or output format, and the bar for additional transparency is lower given the existing annotations.

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 immediately states the action. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple auto-complete tool.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema (so return values are covered), and annotations already declare safety traits. The description adds the key prerequisite of an active analysis session. It lacks guidance on alternatives, but for a straightforward auto-complete tool with strong structured metadata, the description is nearly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only 2 parameters, the description must compensate but only partially does. 'Requires an active analysis session' hints at analysis_session_id, and the tool's purpose implies field_prefix, but the description does not explicitly explain how each parameter is used (e.g., that field_prefix is the text to match against field names). It relies heavily on parameter names being self-explanatory.

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 a specific action: 'Auto-complete display filter field names.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like filter_validate_display and field_list, which handle validation and listing respectively. The verb 'auto-complete' plus the resource 'display filter field names' is precise.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Requires an active analysis session (sharkd command).' This tells the agent when the tool can be used, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer filter_validate_display or field_list. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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