Explain the filter model

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior beyond that, such as the fact it returns a reference cheat-sheet and that it mentions the tool that resolves names to IDs, which helps the agent understand the tool's role without contradicting 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 succinct, consisting of two sentences that front-load what the tool returns and when to use it. There is no redundant or extra content.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers its content (filter codes, value encoding, name-to-id tool) and usage advice. It's complete and self-sufficient.

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, so the schema is empty and the description doesn't need to add parameter explanations. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description doesn't miss any parameter-related information.

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 a cheat-sheet of filter codes, value encoding, and which tool resolves IDs. This is a specific action on a well-defined resource, and it distinguishes from siblings like oskelly_filter_values by focusing on codes and encoding rather than values themselves.

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 says to call it once at the start of a browsing session instead of guessing filter names, providing clear timing and an anti-pattern. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, it guides usage effectively.

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