get_new_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does this well by explaining internal storage (~/.feishu-user-plugin/events.jsonl), the global cursor, exactly-once delivery across MCP processes, and default profile filtering. It does not mention whether draining consumes/deletes events or the output format, but the disclosed traits are substantial and useful.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and resource. The version-history detail adds behavioral context and is not fluff, though it could be considered slightly verbose for a tool description. Overall, it is well-structured and 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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers event source, storage, and profile filtering, but leaves six parameter meanings and the return/consumption behavior unexplained. This is a significant gap for an event-draining tool that likely requires event_type, max_events, and since_seconds to be used correctly.

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?

Only the 'profile' parameter receives meaningful description in the text, while the remaining six parameters (peek, chat_id, event_type, event_types, max_events, since_seconds) have no schema description (14% coverage) and no additional explanation. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented 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 uses the specific verb 'Drain' and identifies a precise resource: 'machine-level shared event log.' It distinguishes itself from sibling chat/message tools by describing a real-time event stream with exactly-once delivery, and even mentions version-specific behavior.

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?

The description implies usage when one needs to consume real-time events, and it gives concrete guidance about profile filtering ('Default = current active... pass profile="*"'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_messages or search_messages, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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