inspect_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that a serialized replay is triggered and that the work is batched, which hints at cost, but says nothing about whether replay mutates state, what permissions are required, or how failures surface.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key scoping information ('for an event', 'one serialized replay call') front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse to be fully useful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description should at minimum enumerate the selectable pipeline sections and clarify its relationship to sibling tools.

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%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters. capture_id and event_id are self-evident by name, and 'selected pipeline sections' loosely corresponds to the include array, but the allowed section values and the effect of omitting include (default null) are never explained.

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?

It gives a verb (inspect) and a resource (pipeline sections for an event), so the general intent is inferable. But 'selected pipeline sections' is vague about what sections exist or what 'inspect' returns, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like get_event or get_pipeline_state.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternative named. The phrase 'in one serialized replay call' hints that this batches multiple fetches into a single replay, but the agent is left to infer when that matters versus calling get_event plus get_pipeline_state.

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