filter_by_method

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by disclosing case-insensitivity, default limit (15), max limit (50), and that it returns the latest N items. However, it does not specify whether the operation is destructive or read-only, nor what 'streamlined view' means precisely.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds key behavioral details. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers essential behavioral aspects (case-insensitivity, limits) but does not explain how it differs from other filter tools or what constitutes a 'streamlined view'. Adequate for a simple filtering tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining the method parameter (HTTP methods) and the limit parameter (default 15, max 50, returns latest). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 action (filter by HTTP method) and the specific resource (HTTP methods like GET, POST, PUT, DELETE). It distinguishes from sibling filter tools by focusing on method filtering, and mentions a 'streamlined view' which sets expectations.

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 implies usage for filtering HTTP methods but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like filter_by_path or filter_by_status. No 'when not to use' or comparison with siblings.

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