Get user events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds little beyond the purpose: it does not mention pagination, time-range behavior, required permissions, or what the audit log contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is concise. Its brevity is not the issue; the problem is that the brevity leaves required information missing, which is captured in other dimensions.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, this description is far too sparse. It does not explain how to choose between this and related event-listing tools, nor does it clarify the opaque additional parameters.

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%, so the description must carry the burden for all six parameters. It only vaguely indicates that org and member context are involved, and says nothing about the undocumented 'data', 'form', 'params', or 'json_body' 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('audit-log events') scoped to 'one org member,' which gives an agent enough to distinguish this from org-wide or cipher-specific event tools. It stops short of naming the sibling tools that are the closest alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling alternatives such as vaultwarden_get_org_events or vaultwarden_get_cipher_events. The per-member scoping is only implied by the phrase 'one org member.'

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