grouping_filing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states READ-ONLY, explains that lineage is traversed not grouped, details the resolved/unresolved behavior, and notes that totals stay visible despite limits. This is rich, specific, and directly actionable.

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 dense but well structured: READ-ONLY and the core semantic distinction are front-loaded, followed by lineage details and a clean Args list. Every sentence earns its place and contributes to correct invocation.

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 complexity of lineage traversal and grouping behavior, the description covers population filtering, resolution rules, unresolved values, and limit behavior. An output schema is present, so return-value details are not required; nothing critical is missing.

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%, and the Args section compensates for all four parameters with meaningful behavior: status has a default and 'all' option, category restricts, and limits preserve totals. It adds real semantics beyond bare schema types, though the status description is slightly terse.

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 states a specific verb/resource: 'Split lineages and shared filing events (sprint / plan)' and clarifies the scope with a READ-ONLY summary. It is distinguishable from sibling grouping tools like grouping_citations and grouping_tags by domain, though 'Split' is slightly unconventional and no sibling comparison is made.

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?

Usage is implied: the agent should use this when it needs lineage or filing-event groupings. However, there is no explicit statement about when to choose this tool over grouping_citations or grouping_tags, and no exclusion conditions or alternative routing.

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