Get Harm Source Filter Options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions returning a JSON array, which is consistent with read-only operations, but the confusing fetch-incident-details sentence detracts from transparency. Overall, the description adds some value but is not highly informative beyond the 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 a single paragraph of moderate length. It starts well but includes an irrelevant sentence about fetching incident details, which wastes space. The endpoint information is useful but could be more concisely integrated. Overall, it is not optimally concise and has some 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 lack of output schema, the description does a fair job stating the return type (JSON array of filter values) but does not elaborate on the structure of each filter value or pagination behavior. The annotations cover safety, but the description leaves some gaps for a filtering tool. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 the parameter descriptions are already present. The description only restates that project_id is required, adding no new meaning. It does not clarify the page or per_page parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description provides no extra value beyond the schema.

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 it returns harm sources for filtering injuries, specifying the resource and action. However, it includes a confusing sentence about fetching incident details, which slightly muddles the purpose. It distinguishes from sibling filter tools by naming the specific resource.

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 includes a misleading sentence about fetching incident details that contradicts the tool's purpose. It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other filter options tools for different incident aspects. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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