Get Contributing Condition Filter Options

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, destructive false, idempotent, and open world. The description adds that it returns a JSON array of filter values, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits. Since annotations carry most burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 contains three sentences, but the second is misleading and unnecessary. The inclusion of API endpoint info adds clutter without clear benefit. It could be more concise and avoid confusion.

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?

The description mentions the return type (JSON array) but does not cover pagination behavior despite the presence of page/per_page parameters in the schema. Without an output schema, additional details about limits or structure would improve completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description redundantly states that project_id is required, which is already in the schema. It does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for the optional page and per_page parameters.

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 begins with a clear purpose: 'Returns contributing conditions in use for filtering incidents.' However, the second sentence contradicts this by saying 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Incidents by its identifier,' which is misleading and suggests a different functionality. This muddles the clarity, resulting in a moderate score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among the many sibling filter option tools, there is no differentiation or mention of when to choose this one. Usage context is absent, earning a low score.

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