add_step_filter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool's effect ('skip certain files/directories') but lacks details on behavioral traits such as persistence (e.g., whether filters apply across sessions), permissions needed, error conditions, or rate limits. The example ('vendor code') adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a helpful example. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters (via schema), but lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects, return values, or error handling. Given the complexity of debugging tools, more context would be beneficial.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (pattern, type, description) thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at use cases ('skip certain files/directories') but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 ('Add a step filter') and purpose ('to skip certain files/directories during stepping'), with a concrete example ('vendor code'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_step_filters' by specifying creation rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other filter-related tools if any existed.

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 implies usage during stepping operations (e.g., debugging) to manage file/directory inclusion or exclusion, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_breakpoint' or 'step_into'. No specific exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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