get_filters

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

The description is minimal. It indicates a read operation via 'Return', but does not explicitly state that no changes are made, nor does it mention error behavior when an invalid index is provided. With no annotations, more behavioral disclosure would be valuable, though the getter nature is fairly clear.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the main purpose and a clear args section. There is no wasted text, and the structure makes the parameter definition easy to parse.

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 getter with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the parameter and the purpose, and the output schema presumably covers return format details. A slight gap is not mentioning what exactly constitutes 'include/exclude filter patterns' or any edge-case behavior.

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 only provides a title 'Index' and type 'integer' with no description. The description adds essential meaning by explaining that 'index' is the repository index (0-based), which is critical for correctly invoking the tool.

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 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource: include/exclude filter patterns of a repository. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_filters, which likely modifies those patterns.

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 intended use is implied by the verb 'Return' and the parameter 'index', but no explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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