request_events

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states a query operation. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, performance impact, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description should carry the full burden but does not.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail for a tool with 4 parameters. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but under-specified.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, and potentially overlapping siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not define the output schema (though it exists) or explain default behavior. More context is needed for proper use.

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 explain parameters. It mentions 'label' and filtering by caller/type, but does not explain the format of event_types or caller_contains, nor the limit parameter. The description adds some meaning but is insufficient for the 4 parameters.

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 queries heap events by label, with filtering by caller and type. The verb 'query' and resource 'heap events within a request' are specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like request_timeline or heap_snapshot.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. siblings like request_timeline or heap_bins_json. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or when not to use it.

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