List Checklist List Specification Section Filter Options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. Description does not contradict and adds minor context (e.g., mentions pagination and required params). However, it does not go beyond what annotations already imply about safety and idempotence. No significant behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.

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?

Description is four sentences: first explains what it returns, second gives use cases, third specifies output format, fourth lists requirements and endpoint. Well-structured and relatively concise, though could potentially combine the first two sentences.

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, so description must compensate. It mentions return type (JSON array of filter values) and pagination. However, it does not describe the available filter options (e.g., inspection_type_grouping, view) beyond the schema. The title says 'Specification Section Filter Options' but description mentions 'specification sections' – slight mismatch. Lacks details on how filtering works or what the returned array contains.

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 covers all 7 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds value by explicitly listing required parameters (company_id, project_id), providing the full endpoint URL, and contextualizing pagination and search parameters. This goes beyond the raw schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it returns specification sections for inspections with pagination and search, and explicitly mentions use cases like enumerating inspections or finding IDs. However, there is slight inconsistency: first sentence says 'returns specification sections' while third says 'returns a JSON array of available filter values' – both are plausible but could confuse. Name and title are clear.

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?

Provides usage guidance: 'Use this to enumerate Inspections when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' But does not explicitly say when not to use or mention alternatives among many sibling filter tools. Could be improved by distinguishing from similar filter option tools (e.g., list_checklist_list_inspection_type_filter_options).

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