filter

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

Annotations already supply read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive signals, so the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the conservative exclusion policy and the option between compact and detailed responses. This is useful beyond what the annotations can express.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core policy, the second clarifies both the exclusion rule and the response-mode option, and every clause earns its place.

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?

Annotations and an output schema offset the need to explain side effects and return values, and the description covers the core policy and response modes. The main gaps are the undefined `criterion` parameter and the lack of routing guidance against sibling tools, which makes the definition adequate but not fully complete.

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%, and the description compensates only partially. It hints at `response_detail` with 'use `detailed`' and at `rejection_threshold` with 'sufficiently confident,' but it never explains `criterion`, the candidate contract, or how the numerical threshold maps to rejection. Parameter names and defaults must carry most of the semantic burden.

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 first sentence names a concrete action and scope: conservatively retain relevant, uncertain, failed, and oversized candidates. The threshold sentence further sharpens the behavior—only a sufficiently confident irrelevant result excludes a candidate—which clearly distinguishes it from a plain 'decide' tool. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts the sibling tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use `filter` versus `info`, `decide`, or `batch_decide`. The wording implies a conservative filtering use case, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool instead of a sibling.

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