Check Scene Against Rules

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 say whether the check is read-only, whether it fails or returns a report, whether content rules must already be registered, or what scope project_id imposes.

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 parenthetical phrase is front-loaded and wastes no words, though the extreme brevity is partly the cause of the other gaps.

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 two-parameter validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition leaves the return values, required inputs, and preconditions unspecified, which is inadequate to call it confidently.

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 coverage is 0% and neither parameter has a description. The description never mentions event_id or project_id, nor which is required (the schema marks none as required), so it adds nothing over the bare 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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (event) plus the rule dimensions examined: banned words, word count, glossary, character voice. This distinguishes it from siblings like check_canon, check_localization, and validate_branch_graph, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer.

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?

There is no indication of when to invoke this versus check_canon, validate_project, or any other check tool, nor any prerequisite such as content rules first being registered via register_content_rules. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.

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