List Bruno request filters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden but does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: 'Secret values are not returned', which tells the agent about output sanitization. It does not state that this is a read-only inspection (only implied), nor mention error behavior for invalid/unreadable collection paths.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core action and return payload are front-loaded, and the security caveat is a brief, worthwhile addition.

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 single-parameter, read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers what is inspected and what is returned (enabled/disabled params, secrets withheld). It would be marginally stronger if it clarified the read-only nature and behavior on a missing or malformed collection.

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% with a single parameter, so the schema already documents the collection path argument fully, including examples and length constraints. The description adds no additional semantics about the path or parsing behavior, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Inspect') with a precise resource ('OpenCollection YAML requests') and states exactly what is returned: enabled and disabled query params usable as filter scenarios. This distinguishes it from siblings like list-collections and run-filter-scenarios without ambiguity.

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 'can be used as filter scenarios' implies this tool feeds a downstream workflow (likely run-filter-scenarios), which hints at when to use it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative for cases where you want to list collections versus request filters.

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