last_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool shows 'recent' events but does not define 'recent' (e.g., time window), disclose whether events are live or cached, or mention any rate limits or filtering behavior. This lack of detail limits an AI agent's understanding.

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 concise sentence that communicates the core function and context (troubleshooting) without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and every element adds value, meeting the standard for this dimension.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is minimally sufficient. However, for troubleshooting purposes, one might expect clarification on event types or format, and the description does not mention that the output is raw (unparsed). It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The single parameter 'limit' is well-defined in the input schema with a default, minimum, and maximum. However, the tool description adds no explanation of what the parameter controls (e.g., number of events returned), leaving the schema to cover the semantics. Given schema description coverage is 0%, the description should ideally clarify usage, but the parameter is simple enough to infer.

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 purpose: retrieving recent raw CDP events for troubleshooting protocol compatibility. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('raw CDP events'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cdp_call' or 'debugger_control' by focusing on viewing raw events rather than executing or controlling.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like 'list_network_requests' or 'evaluate_on_callframe' serve different purposes, but no explicit context is given for selecting this tool. The purpose is implied but not contrasted.

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