Explain event block structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the output includes `warnings` matching what writers return and that the rules are 'engine-verified', which frames the tool as an authoritative read. However it says nothing about side effects, permissions, or whether the call is purely read-only (only implied by the verb 'report').

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, front-loaded with the core capability and then the warning behavior. The em-dash clause in the second sentence is slightly convoluted but the text is tightly scoped with little waste.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must do more work, and it does explain the semantic content of the return (rules plus warnings). But it omits the shape of the output and leaves all three parameters unexplained, so an agent still lacks what it needs to call the tool 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 the three parameters (mapId, eventId, pageIndex) are entirely undocumented in the schema. The description's only nod to them is the vague 'Given a page', which loosely maps to pageIndex but leaves mapId and eventId meaning unexplained, so it does not 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 (report) and resource (engine-verified rules for nested command lists), and even samples the content (which codes indent deeper, which continuation codes repeat, where a block ends). It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like command_catalog or decode_commands that also deal with command structure.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative among the many command-structure siblings. The phrase 'Given a page it also returns warnings' hints that a page context is optional rather than a requirement, but the agent is left to infer the conditions for calling this.

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