get-viz-filter

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get a specific visualization filter' and does not describe potential outcomes (e.g., what happens if the filter is not found), return format, or permission requirements. This is a minimal description that fails to disclose behavior beyond the obvious read operation.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple get-by-ID operation, earning its place without padding.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values or behavioral details to be complete. It does not. The tool appears simple, but the description leaves out essential context such as what a 'visualization filter' is, what the response contains, or error handling, making it incomplete for an agent to rely on.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for filter_id, and the description does not compensate. It does not explain what a filter_id is, where to find it, or any format expectations. The parameter name is self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's basic field name and type.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('a specific visualization filter'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-viz-filters (plural). The word 'specific' signals that this is a single-item retrieval, which aligns with the required filter_id parameter.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-viz-filters, nor does it state any prerequisites (e.g., having a filter ID). It merely states the action without context.

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