prefix_query

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that unsupported point-only filters return N/A, leaving out critical details such as idempotency, side effects, permissions, or rate limits. This is minimal disclosure.

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 short but at the cost of being under-specified. It lacks any structure (e.g., bullet points, sections) and the first sentence is practically empty. Effective conciseness would convey necessary information efficiently, but here it omits essential details.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description still fails to provide a complete picture. It does not explain what the tool returns, the nature of the data queried, or any behavioral constraints beyond the one filter idiosyncrasy. The description is inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 single parameter 'prefix' is not described at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning about what the prefix represents, its expected format, or how it is used in the query. This is a complete failure to add 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 'Prefix query' is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify what resource or data is being queried, making the purpose vague. The additional sentence about unsupported filters adds some context but does not clarify the primary function.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'contains' or 'range_query'. The note about unsupported point-only filters returning N/A is a usage constraint but not a guideline for selection among alternatives.

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