get_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses ordering, cursor semantics, the returned next_after_id, and the edge case that notification withdrawals update the row and are not re-emitted. This goes well beyond a generic 'get events' and gives agents concrete behavioral expectations.

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 three short, densely informative sentences with no filler. The core incremental-cursor behavior is front-loaded, followed by the continuation pattern and a specific behavioral edge case. Every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema covers return values, so that is not a gap. However, for a tool with no annotations and incomplete parameter coverage, the description should explain kind and limit to be fully actionable. The core stream behavior is well covered, but the parameter ambiguity leaves the definition only partially complete.

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. It explains after_id ('eventos con id > after_id') and relates it to next_after_id, but it does not explain the meaning or accepted values for kind, nor the semantics of limit. Two of three parameters remain effectively undocumented.

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 tool as incremental cursor-based event consumption ('eventos con id > after_id, en orden de llegada'). It differentiates itself from siblings by emphasizing the stream/log pattern and the next_after_id cursor, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It provides clear usage context: consume events incrementally with after_id and continue using next_after_id for the next call. The 'patron de stream/log' makes the intended polling pattern evident, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus siblings like wait_for_events.

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