Preview an event-driven data reduction

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses concrete behavior: detecting false-to-true transitions, debouncing events, merging overlapping windows, and returning timestamps, intervals, and kept seconds/fraction. The explicit caveat that it does not predict output byte size adds useful limitation context.

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 dense but purposeful sentences: purpose, input constraints and behavior, then workflow and limitation. Every sentence earns its place and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

It covers behavior, outputs, input constraints, the required confirmation workflow, and a known limitation, while the output schema handles return-value detail. The remaining gap is the under-specified path, event_topic, and args semantics, which keeps this from being fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partly does: predicate is a SQL boolean, pre/post seconds are nonnegative, and debounce_seconds maps to debouncing nearby events. However, path, event_topic, and especially the catch-all args parameter remain semantically unexplained beyond their schema titles.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Preview an event-window reduction without writing artifacts.' It also distinguishes itself from the run_pipeline siblings by explicitly framing this as a pre-execution preview step.

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?

It gives clear usage context: inspect source and topic schemas, provide a SQL predicate and nonnegative pre/post seconds, then report results and get user confirmation before running run_pipeline or run_pipeline_batch. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use exclusions beyond the byte-size caveat.

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