accelo_run_filter

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 discloses that results contain the filter's object_type with default fields plus requested fields, which is useful. It also notes the pagination constraint ('accepts only _limit, not _page'). However, it omits details like permissions required, whether the operation is read-only, error behavior, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core action and return behavior, followed by a clear Args section. It is concise without omitting necessary details, and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides a solid overview of what the tool does and its parameters. It could be more complete by addressing authentication, error cases, or the relationship to other filter-related tools, but it covers the essential operational details.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: it documents 'id' as the filter ID, 'fields' as additional fields on matched objects, and 'limit' as max results. The note about _limit versus _page adds critical context. The only gap is that it does not specify the format of 'fields' (e.g., comma-separated string).

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 states a specific verb (run) and resource (a saved filter), and clarifies that it returns the objects the filter matches. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like accelo_list_filters or accelo_list_object_filters, which manage or list filters rather than executing 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?

Usage is implied: this tool is for executing an existing filter. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as accelo_list_filters (to discover filters) or other object-listing tools. The agent must infer the correct context.

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