enforce_mcp_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'report-only' (non-destructive) and 'raw-free' (does not expose raw data), which are helpful, but it does not clarify whether any state is modified, whether authentication is needed, or the exact nature of the interceptor result. The disclosure is partial despite carrying the full burden.

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 with the primary action front-loaded. It is concise and avoids filler, though it may be too terse for the tool's complexity. In terms of structure, it communicates the core action efficiently.

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 no output schema, no annotations, minimal parameter documentation, and a relatively complex policy-evaluation task, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the interceptor result, parameter semantics, or any side effects, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the purpose of the 'text' or 'label' parameters. An agent cannot infer what text to pass or how label affects the call. The description adds no meaning beyond the generic parameter names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('MCP runtime block/redact policy') and indicates the output type ('raw-free report-only interceptor result'). It distinguishes from siblings like observe_mcp_event (observation) and scan_mcp_config (scanning), though 'raw-free' and 'interceptor' are jargon that could confuse agents.

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 its siblings. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. The only implicit signal is the verb 'Evaluate' suggesting policy enforcement, but nothing clarifies a selection condition.

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