filter_validate_display

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly says the tool 'returns whether the filter syntax is valid' and that no active session is needed, which clarifies expected behavior without contradicting the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, and every word adds value. It states the core function first and then the key contextual detail, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 low-complexity validation tool with one parameter, existing annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the essential purpose, return behavior, and a key prerequisite (no active session), while the output schema handles the return format details. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description needed to compensate. It clarifies that the tool validates a 'display filter expression,' which implicitly refers to the single 'display_filter' parameter, but it doesn't explain the expected format or provide examples. Since the parameter is a simple, well-named string, the meaning is reasonably clear, but the description adds minimal detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Validate') and a clear resource ('Wireshark display filter expression'), which immediately conveys the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like filter_validate_capture (which validates capture filters) and filter_complete (which auto-completes filters), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to validate a display filter expression. It adds a notable usage condition ('Does not require an active analysis session') that helps decide when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, which would warrant a 5.

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