get_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it explains append-only semantics, how edits/reorder/truncation are detected, the custody limitation, and the paging/total semantics. It gives a concrete size example and clarifies that 'total' distinguishes a full log from a partial page. This is strong, non-obvious behavioral disclosure.

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 around 100 words and each sentence adds substance, with the core concept front-loaded. The opening is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb-led statement, and some phrasing is ornate, but there is little wasted text.

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 behavioral and pagination context is valuable, but the tool has three parameters, one required, with zero schema documentation and no usage guidance. An agent still lacks the information needed to call it correctly, especially what run_id should be and how limit/offset map to paging.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it never defines run_id, limit, or offset. The paging discussion implies limit/offset exist, and 'total' clarifies an output field, but an agent cannot determine what run_id refers to or how offsets behave from the description.

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 identifies the resource as the 'typed decision log' and explains that it returns events in hash-chained order. It references verify_journal, which helps distinguish this from verification tools, though it does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list' and does not differentiate from other list/get siblings such as list_runs or fetch_records.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use get_events versus alternatives. verify_journal is mentioned, but only to explain what happens when the hash chain is broken; the description does not state when to choose get_events over list_runs, audit_export, or other sibling tools.

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