system_events

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only, describes the return envelope with truncation behavior, and explains how to handle truncation. This is good transparency for a read operation.

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 paragraphs: first states purpose and arguments, second describes return envelope. No redundant sentences, front-loaded with '[READ]' and purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers inputs and output format. It explains truncation. Missing contextual details like event structure or example, but sufficient for basic usage.

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%, so description must explain all parameters. It does so thoroughly: since (range 1..86400, default 3600), event_type (list of allowed values), target (default omitted). Each parameter gets clear semantics beyond schema 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 clearly states it retrieves 'recent daemon events over the last N seconds, rolled up by type+action', with a '[READ]' prefix. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like system_info or container_logs, though the exact meaning of 'rolled up' could be more explicit.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., system_info, container_logs). The description only explains parameters without contextualizing the tool's role among siblings.

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