validate_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and 'without changing anything', and reports parameter/structure warnings, which clearly communicates side-effect-free behavior and expected output type.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states purpose, the second states key behavioral guarantees. No wasted words or repetition.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with two simple integer parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and behavior. It mentions the warning reports but doesn't detail return structure; however, that is not strictly necessary given the simplicity. The read-only assurance adds completeness.

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% for both mapId and eventId, which already explain their meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond reaffirming the event context, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: validating a single event's command lists against a known command table. The verb 'validate' and resource 'single event' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like validate_project and validate_references.

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 scope (single event) implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like validate_project. There is no direct comparison or exclusion, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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