context_filter

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: returns verbatim spans, never summaries, reports dropped coverage, uses Intel NPU embedding, writes nothing to semantic index, and has file size limits (4KB-256KB). It also notes it does not substitute for grep. This is comprehensive transparency without annotation support.

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 well-structured: purpose, usage guidance, example, output behavior, technical details, constraints. Each sentence carries useful information; no filler. It is longer than average, but justified by the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations.

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 complexity (NPU-based embedding, filtering, output reporting), the description covers purpose, use cases, alternatives, constraints, privacy, and output format. There is no output schema, but the description clearly explains the returned data: verbatim spans with line numbers and dropped-score statistics. Missing parameter documentation is a minor gap, but the overall context is complete.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description mentions only the two required parameters (path and query) via example, plus 'limit' implicitly ('raise limit'). The parameter context_lines remains undocumented in both description and schema. The description adds some meaning beyond the schema, but not enough to fully compensate for the 0% coverage gap.

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 'Extract only the parts of a large local text file that are relevant to a question.' This is a specific verb+resource (extract from file) and differentiates itself from grep and other sibling tools. The example invocation further clarifies its exact use.

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 explicitly says when to use it (instead of reading big logs, test output, diffs) and when not to use it: 'This is not a substitute for grep: when you know the exact string to look for, grep is faster, free, and exact.' It also suggests a workflow with tee and filtering, which provides clear usage context.

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