filter_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions include/exclude modes but fails to reveal whether the input results are mutated, how multiple filter criteria are combined (AND/OR), or what the return value looks like. The lack of such essential behavioral details leaves the agent uncertain about side effects and results.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and key modes.

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?

The tool is moderately complex due to a nested filters object and an enumeration-driven mode, but the description does not address important contextual aspects like output format, behavior with no matching filters, or interaction between filters. Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns, which it omits.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it lists criteria that are already in the schema's property descriptions. It does not clarify the 'results' parameter further than the schema already does.

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 the tool's function: 'Filter issues from audit results by various criteria' with specific mention of criteria types (rule IDs, categories, impact levels, WCAG levels). It also distinguishes itself by mentioning 'includes/exclude modes', a feature not implied by sibling names like 'search_issues' or 'prioritize_issues'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having an audit result before filtering), nor does it specify contexts where include or exclude modes would be preferred. The description simply states what it does without situational advice.

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