inject_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that events are 'simulated' and lists types, but does not describe side effects (e.g., impact on simulation state, whether the action is reversible, or if it requires an active scenario).

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 sentences contain all essential information. The purpose is front-loaded, and the supported events are listed efficiently without unnecessary words.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters with only 1 required, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain half the parameters, return values, or behavioral side effects, making it incomplete for an AI agent to understand full usage.

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?

Only `event_type` is partially explained by listing its enum values via description. The other three parameters (`target`, `delay_sec`, `details`) have zero schema coverage and no description providing meaning. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 verb ('inject'), resource ('simulated market event'), and context ('current scenario for training'). It explicitly lists six supported event types, distinguishing this tool from others like `advance_time` or `send_order`.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says 'for training' without specifying exclusions or when not to use it. Sibling tools are listed but no comparison is provided.

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