admin_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full safety burden and includes the '[READ]' prefix to signal a read-only operation. It also discloses the return format and the nuanced behavior of 'truncated' on authentik, which is valuable beyond what structural fields would provide. It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but for a read tool this is adequate.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence contributes useful information. It is concise enough while capturing important details, with no fluff or repetition.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, return structure, and a platform-specific behavioral nuance, which is comprehensive for a tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema. The explicit return format documentation is particularly valuable given the lack of an output schema.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description thoroughly compensates by explaining max_results as a page bound with default and max, and target as the IdP target name with the 'omit for default' instruction. This adds meaning well beyond the schema's type definitions and defaults.

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 lists 'Recent admin/config-change events' with details on who/what/from where, making the purpose unambiguous. The '[READ]' prefix further clarifies the operation type, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like login_events and client_detail by focusing on admin/config changes.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (auditing admin changes) and provides parameter guidance for invocation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks the explicit exclusions needed for a 5.

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