Quake Filterable Fields

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. It only describes the output, leaving the agent uninformed about safe usage.

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 a single sentence followed by a long list of examples. While it is concise in terms of word count, the example list is lengthy and could be formatted more efficiently (e.g., grouped or truncated). The structure is adequate but not optimal.

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?

For a simple tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the purpose and provides representative examples of the field names, which is adequate given the tool's low complexity.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds value by listing numerous example field names, providing concrete context beyond the empty schema. This helps the agent understand the type of output expected.

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 gets Quake service fields usable in include/exclude operations. It specifies the endpoint and provides examples. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'quake_aggregation_fields', though the context of sibling tools suggests distinction.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It mentions fields are usable in include/exclude but does not provide context for when this tool is appropriate or when to use sibling tools like quake_aggregation_fields.

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