Read recent relevant events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: newest-first ordering, compactness, backward pagination, checkpoint-based filtering, and the relationship to current context. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the exclusion is stated immediately after the capabilities. 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?

With no output schema and low parameter documentation, the description leaves out important invocation details: return shape, what 'relevant events' means, how query filtering works, what includeSecrets does, and how pagination parameters interact. An agent would still have to guess at several behaviors.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions backward pagination and checkpoint filtering, which hints at beforeId and sinceCheckpointId, but it does not explain limit, query, includeSecrets, or pagination mechanics. This is insufficient for a 6-parameter tool with mostly undocumented schema.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('compact newest-first history') and explains the tool's purpose: showing how the authoritative current state developed. It also distinguishes itself from current context, which is a sibling tool, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 gives concrete usage context: backward pagination and events since a checkpoint. It also explicitly warns 'do not use it instead of current context,' providing a when-not. It does not name all alternative siblings or broader selection criteria, but the guidance is clear enough.

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