Get cipher events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the per-cipher scoping; it says nothing about permissions required, pagination, ordering, or what event fields are returned.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is very terse, but appropriately so for a read-only list operation.

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 list tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves out return shape, pagination behavior, event ordering, and permission requirements. It is not sufficient to call the tool confidently beyond knowing it lists events for a cipher.

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% with five parameters (data, form, params, cipher_id, json_body). The description only vaguely implies cipher_id via 'for one cipher'; it does not document the other four parameters or the expected cipher_id format, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('List') and resource ('audit-log events') scoped to one cipher. It distinguishes scope from broader siblings like vaultwarden_get_org_events and vaultwarden_get_user_events, though it doesn't name them.

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?

Implies usage by scoping to a single cipher, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives (e.g., org-level or user-level event listings). The reader must infer that this is the per-cipher audit view.

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