events_query

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

The description adds 'Read-only' (matching annotations) and mentions 'kind whitelist', which is behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description enriches with the whitelist constraint and optional parameter hints. A score of 5 would require additional traits like auth requirements or rate limits.

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 extremely concise: one sentence and a fragment. It front-loads the purpose and immediately states read-only nature and optional params. Every word earns its place. A score of 5 would require a slightly more structured presentation (e.g., bullet points) but this is efficient.

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 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain 'user-visible' or the whitelist mechanism, nor the return behavior. However, the output schema likely covers return fields. Annotations provide safety context. The description is adequate but could be more complete by clarifying the scope of events and expected output format.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters with types, defaults, enums, and descriptions. The tool description only lists optional parameters ('since', 'severity', 'limit') and mentions 'kind whitelist' in the purpose, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool queries 'user-visible events' with a kind whitelist, specifying the resource and constraint. The verb 'query' is appropriate, and the tool is distinct from unrelated sibling tools (memory, profile, etc.). A score of 5 would require explicit differentiation from similar siblings, which aren't present.

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 versus alternatives. However, sibling tools are all in different domains (memory, profile, schema), so there is no obvious alternative for querying events. The description implicitly covers usage by stating the resource and filters, but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative references.

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