get_event_log

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

Despite no annotations, the description explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. Also mentions 'Filters AND-compose' to clarify filtering logic. No contradictions or omissions beyond what is reasonable for a simple query tool.

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 concise sentences: first defines purpose and content, second provides usage examples and default limit. No filler, every phrase adds value. Front-loaded with main action.

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 read-only log query tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, filtering behavior, and example use cases. It lacks details on response format or ordering, but the examples and annotations (none) keep it adequate. Missing clarity on timestamp granularity but not critical.

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 40% (only type and limit have descriptions). The description adds value by stating filters AND-compose and reiterates default limit. However, parameters like strategy, from_ts_ns, to_ts_ns lack any description in either schema or description, leaving gaps. The 'Filters AND-compose' insight partially compensates but not fully.

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 resource ('engine event log') and the verb ('Query'), with specific examples of content (signals, orders, fills, risk checks). It distinguishes from siblings like 'explain_event' which is more about explanation, not raw log queries.

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?

Provides concrete usage examples ('what happened in the last 5 minutes', 'show me all the signals from ema-trend'), giving clear context for when to use this tool. Does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but examples suffice for typical scenarios.

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