run_saved_filter

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that unknown names return a list of available presets/filters, which is helpful, but it does not state side effects (e.g., whether it modifies data), authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. For a tool with zero annotations, this is insufficient.

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 concise with two sentences. The list of presets is clear and front-loaded. No unnecessary words, though the list could be more compact.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters, the description lacks completeness. It does not describe the return format, behavior of limit and enrich_limit, or how saved filters are managed. The tool's full capability is under-documented.

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 explain parameters. It partially explains the 'name' parameter by listing preset options, but it does not explain 'limit' or 'enrich_limit', leaving their purpose and constraints ambiguous.

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 that the tool runs a saved filter or built-in preset, and lists the preset names. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'run_filter', which may serve a similar purpose for ad-hoc filters. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_filter' or 'screen'. The description implies it is for saved or preset filters but does not explain the context for choosing this tool over others.

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