Chainsaw: group detections by event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the useful grouping behavior (one row per unique event, with all rule matches retained), but says nothing about ordering, tie-breaking, or how pagination interacts with the retained matches.

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 dense sentence with the core scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably compressed to the point of jargon ('source-qualified events') that some agents may find opaque.

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?

With full schema coverage, an existing safety annotation set, and no output schema to explain, the description covers what the tool returns at a high level (event groups with all rule matches). The main missing piece is disambiguation from the other result-viewing siblings.

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 100% and every parameter (limit, fields, handle, offset, max_bytes) is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the group-vs-row distinction implied by 'Page unique ... events', not new parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb ('Page') and resource ('unique source-qualified events') and adds the key grouping semantics ('retaining every associated rule match'). However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like chainsaw_result_page or chainsaw_result_chunk, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the description alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite the crowded result_* sibling set (result_page, result_chunk, result_fields, result_summary). The agent must infer which result view this tool provides.

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