filter_scan

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which already inform the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, such as return format or how predicates are applied. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enhance transparency meaningfully.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the predicate types concisely. It is free of filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple read-only filter tool with annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks context about the expected pairing of 'value' with the 'exact' predicate, what the output shape is (no output schema), and the relation to scan_value. The description is thin but conveys the core function without major gaps.

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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It only repeats the predicate enum values from the schema, offering no new meaning. The parameters scanId, value, and maxResults are not described at all. The description adds marginal value for predicates but leaves most parameters unexplained.

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 (filter) and the target (a prior scan), and enumerates the supported predicate types (exact, changed, unchanged, increased, decreased). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_value, which creates scans, and read_memory, which reads memory. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'prior scan' implies that the tool should be used after a scan is created, and the sibling tool scan_value is the likely precursor. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state exclusions or when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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