filter_by_path

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key traits: filtering action, simplified view, and limit behavior (default 15, max 50, returns latest N). It does not mention read-only status, but as a filter/query it is implied non-destructive. No contradictions.

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 succinct with three sentences, no wasted words, and front-loads the action. Every sentence provides essential 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 tool simplicity (2 params, no annotations) and presence of output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and parameter behavior. It could mention output format or pagination, but is largely complete for effective use.

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 description must compensate. It explains path_keyword as URL path keyword with examples, and clarifies limit's default, maximum, and effect (returns latest N). 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 tool filters by URL path keyword and returns a simplified view, with explicit examples like '/api/sign' and '/login'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that filter by other criteria (e.g., host, method, status).

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 indicates suitability for quickly locating a business interface, providing context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use or name alternative tools, though the sibling context implies differentiation.

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