lc_replay_scan_events

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Dry-run', implying no side effects, but does not confirm read-only nature, authentication needs, or rate limits. No mention of return format or errors.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks substance. It is front-loaded but sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 tool has 9 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and high complexity, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameter relationships, return values, or execution behavior.

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 description provides no explanation of any parameter. Essential fields like 'events', 'oid', and 'rule_content' are not described, leaving the agent without understanding their purpose.

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 it is a dry-run of a D&R rule against explicit events, using the verb 'Dry-run' and specifying the resource 'D&R rule'. It distinguishes from siblings like lc_replay_dry_run by mentioning 'explicit events', but could more explicitly differentiate from lc_validate_replay_rule.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lc_replay_dry_run or lc_validate_replay_rule. The description lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios.

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