filters_helpers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are heavily cached for 15 minutes, which is a key behavioral trait. It also notes no parameters are needed. However, it does not mention permissions or rate limits, which are minor omissions for a read-only tool.

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 with clear bullet points and workflow tips. Every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded. It is concise for the amount of information conveyed.

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 simple nature (zero parameters, no output schema, read-only), the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and its caching behavior. It is complete for the context.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and per rubric, baseline for 0 params is 4. It appropriately states no parameters are needed.

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 returns all available filter helpers and field types, listing specific information like field IDs, operators, data types, and options. It distinguishes from sibling filter tools (e.g., filters_create) by focusing on discovery rather than manipulation.

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 includes explicit 'Workflow tips' advising to use this tool BEFORE creating or updating filters, and common use cases that help an agent decide when to invoke it. This provides clear guidance on usage context.

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