validate_filter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It says 'validate', which implies a read-only check, but does not state whether it returns a boolean, throws errors, or has side effects. The behavioral nature is minimally described.

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, which is concise, but at the cost of completeness. It front-loads the purpose but omits parameter details and usage context. It is adequate but not efficient in conveying all necessary information.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (2 required params, no output schema shown) and sibling tools like explain_filter_syntax and probe_entity_sample, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, when to use this vs. explain_filter_syntax, or what 'valid' means. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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?

The input schema has 2 parameters (entity, filters) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention any parameter, leaving the agent to guess that entity is likely the resource type and filters is the filter object to validate. No additional meaning is provided.

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 tool's purpose: validate filter shape and field/operator names. It distinguishes from siblings like validate_read_plan and explain_filter_syntax by focusing on filter syntax validation before probing or coding.

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 'before probing or coding' implies a usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives. For example, it could mention that this is a preliminary step to ensure filters are valid before using explore_filter or probe_entity.

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