recent_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the default count. It does not state the sort order (newest first?), whether results are truncated silently, whether it is read-only, or any permission or rate considerations; an output schema exists, which covers return shape but not runtime behavior.

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?

A single short sentence with the key noun and default front-loaded and no filler words. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than surplus wording.

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?

For a simple one-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is close to adequate on shape but leaves real gaps: no ordering, no note about what happens when fewer than 'limit' events exist, and no signal at all about where this sits relative to its three siblings. With no annotations to fall back on, more context was needed.

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% for the single 'limit' parameter, so the description would need to compensate. It only restates the default value of 20, which the schema already declares via 'default': 20, and never explains what limit counts or how it interacts with the 'most recent' ordering.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the most recent events') with a scope qualifier ('most recent') and default count, so an agent knows it is a read of recent entries. It does not name or distinguish itself from the siblings log_event, verify_logbook, and export_logbook, leaving the differentiation implicit.

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?

'for a quick look' is the only usage guidance and is a vague intent hint rather than an explicit when-to-use rule. There is no statement about when to prefer export_logbook or verify_logbook instead, and no mention of prerequisites or ordering guarantees.

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