filter_by_encryption

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It explains sorting by entropy and provides threshold ranges. Though it doesn't mention whether scanning is read-only or affects state, the description sufficiently informs about the tool's behavior (scanning + ordering).

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?

Three sentences, each packed with information: scanning & ordering, threshold meaning, limit bounds. No fluff. Front-loaded with main action.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Description covers threshold and limit defaults and semantics, addressing main parameters. Could mention that it scans all entries (performance note) but not required.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description adds semantic meaning: threshold default and entropy context, limit default and upper bound. This compensates well, though it could also explain parameter units or format.

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?

Description uses specific verb '扫描' (scan) and resource 'checkpoint 的所有条目' (all entries), explicitly stating the tool finds requests with encrypted/compressed/encoded body. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like filter_by_host, filter_by_keyword, etc., none of which target encryption.

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?

Purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use it (detect encryption) and when not (other filter needs). However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are given, leaving some ambiguity for new agents.

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