Checklist Schedule Inspection Type Filter Options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint path, confirming the read-only nature. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides additional detail on the API location.

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 concise with three sentences plus endpoint info. It starts with the core purpose, then the use case, then the return type, followed by required parameters and API reference. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of comprehensive schema and annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, usage, and basic behavior. While there is no output schema, the return type is described as a JSON array of filter values, which is adequate for this read-only filter option tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage on parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions that project_id is required and includes the endpoint path, but does not add further meaning to page or per_page beyond the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline without extra enhancement.

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 that it returns inspection types associated with inspection schedules, with a specific use case: populating a filter UI. It names the resource ('Inspection types') and the action ('Returns'), and distinguishes from sibling filter option tools that target other entities (assignee, equipment, template, location).

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 explicitly says 'Use this to populate a filter UI with the valid values for Inspections,' which provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is well-defined and differentiates from siblings that handle other filter options.

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