List MagicSword audit/block events

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: the required 'alerts:read' scope and the fact that output is normalized JSON rather than raw endpoint telemetry.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then usage examples, then the auth requirement. Nothing is wasted and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 10-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, auth, and return format adequately. It is silent on pagination (limit/offset) and how filters interact, leaving some gaps an agent would need filled.

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 only ~50%, and the description names no parameters directly. The example phrases implicitly touch hours/status/policy_id, but params lacking schema descriptions (limit, offset, platform, endpoint_id) get no explanation, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('normalized, rule-relevant org events'), plus a scoping qualifier ('without raw endpoint telemetry') that separates it from raw-telemetry endpoints. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool it differs from, so it falls short of the top score.

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?

Provides concrete example requests ('show me the last day of audit events', 'find blocked events for this policy') that map user intent to this tool. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is given, so it doesn't reach 5.

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