explain_event_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral traits beyond the implied 'explain' action.

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 sentence of 12 words, concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be structured to include more details without sacrificing conciseness.

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 existence of an output schema covering return values, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not elaborate on the scope of the explanation (e.g., tags, attributes, context), which would be helpful for an agent to understand the tool's output boundaries.

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?

The description does not mention the sole parameter 'event_id' or add any meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without guidance on what the parameter represents or its format.

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 action ('explain') and the resource ('a MISP event'), and adds specificity with 'deterministic, analyst-friendly language'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'summarize_event' or 'generate_event_report', which could have overlapping purposes.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not contrast with 'summarize_event' or 'generate_event_report', leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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