filter_by_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a 'simplified view' and specifies default and maximum limit values. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or the exact nature of the simplified view. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 three sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence articulates the core function, the second provides use-case context, and the third specifies parameter behavior. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, required 'status_code', and an output schema), the description covers the main points: purpose, usage scenario, and parameter details. It does not explicitly note that 'status_code' is required (though the schema does), nor does it describe the output format (but the output schema exists). Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward filter 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the JSON schema provides no explanations for parameters. The description compensates fully by explaining the 'status_code' parameter with practical examples (403, 500) and detailing the 'limit' parameter's default (15) and maximum (50). This adds essential meaning beyond the 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's function: filtering by HTTP status code and returning a simplified view. It also provides concrete examples (403, 500), making the purpose unambiguous. Among sibling tools that filter by other attributes, this tool is distinctively about status codes, so differentiation is clear.

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 offers usage context ('suitable for troubleshooting abnormal requests') and examples, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative sibling tools. The agent is left to infer that for host or keyword filtering, other tools should be used. No exclusionary guidance is provided.

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