available_filters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a non-obvious external behavior (version-dependent names and fatal consequences of guessing), which is valuable. However, it does not describe the tool's own return format, whether it reads from the installed build dynamically, or any other side effects; the description focuses more on domain risk than tool behavior.

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 tightly packed: a one-line purpose, a single-sentence warning, and a compact parameter reference. Every sentence earns its place, the most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the core callable surface and rationale. However, it does not specify the exact return values (e.g., whether it returns an array of plain names or a structured object), nor does it clarify 'contains' matching behavior. This is adequate but leaves moderate gaps for an agent.

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 must compensate for the bare input schema. It does so meaningfully by enumerating allowed values for 'kind' ('export-tabs' or 'save-report') and giving a concrete search example for 'contains' ('Title' or 'Accessibility'). This adds practical guidance beyond the schema, though exact matching semantics are not specified.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource: 'List the export names the INSTALLED Screaming Frog build accepts.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_exports or get_issues, and the version-aware phrasing prevents confusion with generic filter lists.

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 provides strong context: filter names vary by Screaming Frog version and an unknown name aborts an entire crawl. 'Never guess them' is an explicit directive that implies this tool should be used before any crawl/filter operation. It does not name alternative tools or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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