check-viz-filter-name-exists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it checks existence, but does not specify return format, case sensitivity, scope, or behavior for existing vs non-existing names, leaving the agent to guess the outcome.

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 short sentence with no filler words. It is efficiently front-loaded and every word contributes to the core purpose.

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?

Despite being a simple tool, the absence of an output schema, annotations, and parameter explanations means the description is incomplete. It does not describe return values, parameter meanings, or usage context, so an agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior from this text alone.

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 description adds no meaning to the two parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what 'name' or the optional 'type' represents, leaving the agent without sufficient information to correctly populate them.

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 identifies the action ('check') and the resource ('visualization filter name'), making its purpose unambiguous. Although it overlaps in function with sibling check-view-name-exists, it names the specific resource type, which differentiates it enough.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-viz-filters or check-view-name-exists. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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