Get Affliction Type Filter Options

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it returns a JSON array and mentions required parameters but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond those covered by 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 relatively short but includes redundant and contradictory information (second sentence about fetching incident details). It could be more concise and focused solely on filter options.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description could elaborate on the structure of the returned JSON array. The endpoint and API category are mentioned, but pagination behavior is left to parameter descriptions. Adequate for a simple filter options tool but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description only mentions project_id as required, adding no new meaning beyond the schema for page and per_page. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 it returns affliction types for filtering injuries and a JSON array of filter values, but includes a misleading second sentence about fetching details of a specific incident by identifier, which is incorrect and confuses the purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_affliction_types or show_affliction_type. The confusing second sentence implies usage for fetching incident details, which is inaccurate.

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