get_helicone_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states 'Fetch,' which implies a read operation, but fails to disclose authentication requirements (though the api_key parameter hints at this), pagination behavior (limit parameter implies batching but not explained), return format, or error handling. The description is too sparse to fully inform the agent about the tool's 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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and it wastes no words. It precisely conveys the core functionality and context in an efficient manner.

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 description adequately states what the tool does and why, but given the absence of an output schema and annotations, it should describe the return format or any notable behaviors. It doesn't mention what the events look like, whether they are returned as a list, or how drift detection uses them. With 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete but lacks return-value context.

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?

The schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including defaults and explanations, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic meaning to the parameters beyond noting the purpose of the fetch—it doesn't enrich the understanding of 'days' or 'limit' beyond what's already in the schema. Thus, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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's action ('Fetch'), the resource ('LLM runtime events from Helicone'), and its intended use ('for drift detection analysis'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_langsmith_traces, which operate on different data sources.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need Helicone events for drift detection analysis. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like get_langsmith_traces or compare_to_baseline, nor does it mention when not to use this tool. The 'for drift detection analysis' clause implies the usage domain, but no explicit alternative is named.

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