list_saved_queries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that results are scoped to the API key's user visibility and that empty project_identifier means all queries, which are useful behaviors. However, it does not mention other traits like read-only semantics, pagination, or ordering, though the list verb implies read-only.

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 extremely concise: one opening sentence stating purpose and scope, followed by a compact parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information first.

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?

For a simple one-parameter list operation with an output schema available, the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool lists, the visibility scope, and the parameter's behavior. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. other list tools, but that is more of a usage-guideline gap than a completeness issue.

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 0% description coverage (only a title and default), so the description must compensate. The Args section does this well by explaining that project_identifier restricts to a project's queries and that empty means all. It does not specify whether the identifier is a numeric ID or slug, but the core semantics are clear.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('saved queries (filters)') along with an important scope qualifier ('visible to the API key's user'). This distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools like list_trackers or list_custom_fields by naming the exact 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 implies usage by stating it lists saved queries visible to the API key's user, and the optional project_identifier parameter gives context on narrowing results. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions such as not listing queries from other users.

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