filter_by_impact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns filtered items but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset but not explained), or error handling. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and result without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place by defining the action and outcome clearly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters. It doesn't explain return values, behavioral traits, or fully document parameters. For a filtering tool with pagination (limit/offset), more context on output format and usage is needed.

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 33% (only 'impact' has a description). The description adds some value by clarifying that 'impact' filters KSI items by level (low, moderate, high), but it doesn't explain the semantics of 'limit' or 'offset' parameters. With low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves two parameters undocumented.

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 purpose: 'Filter Key Security Indicators (KSI) by impact level' with a specific verb ('filter') and resource ('KSI items'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_ksi' by specifying filtering by impact level rather than listing all. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other filtering tools if they exist.

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 context by stating 'Returns all KSI items that apply to the specified impact level', suggesting this tool is for retrieving filtered KSI data. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'list_ksi' or 'get_ksi', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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