object_filter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that operations include listing and applying preset filters, but it does not state whether applying modifies the input file, requires an output path, or has destructive side effects on existing objects. The description adds operational mode information but omits side-effect and workflow behavior.

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 exceptionally compact and front-loaded, capturing scope, content categories, and operation modes in a single line. Every phrase earns its place; the capitalized '212 PRESET FILTERS' and 'whole Filters menu' immediately establish the resource. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

This tool has nine parameters, three operation modes, nested objects, and no output schema, so a minimal one-line description is insufficient for correct invocation. The description does not explain how operations map to input_path, output_path, object_ids, select_all, or tweaks, nor what the return value looks like for list versus apply. An agent would need external examples or additional context to call this tool reliably.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by enumerating valid operation values and listing filter categories, which the operation parameter's schema description defers to. However, it does not clarify which parameters are needed for which operation, nor how tweaks, object_ids, select_all, or output_path interact, leaving much of the parameter semantics to 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 identifies the tool as Inkscape's 212 preset filters, covering the entire Filters menu with concrete categories like bevels, metal, glass, shadows, and glows. It also lists the operation modes (list, menus, apply), which anchors the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar sibling tools like extension_run or object_style, so the differentiation is mostly implicit.

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 operation values (list, menus, apply) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as extension_run, path_effect, or object_style. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, and no workflow hints for selecting among the three operations. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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