Get Entity Events

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent already knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns 'event history,' but no additional behavioral details such as ordering or event scope beyond what the schema already provides. With annotations covering safety, this adds minimal extra context, warranting a mid-range score.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without filler or redundant information.

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 has a rich schema with parameter descriptions and an output schema, while annotations confirm read-only behavior. The description, though brief, fully explains what the tool does and for which entity types, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 100%, and the input schema already contains detailed explanations for each parameter, including mutual exclusivity for from_id and selected, direction, and per_page. The description contributes no parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the specific action 'Get the event history' and explicitly names the resources: 'Yandex Tracker project, portfolio, or goal.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like entity_get (which retrieves entity details) and issue_get_changelog (which covers issues).

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 implies usage for entity event history by naming the three entity types, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude other cases (e.g., issues) or mention alternatives like issue_get_changelog, so no exclusions are stated.

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