get_event_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'optional filters' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of events with timestamps). The description is minimal and misses key operational details.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with a single sentence that states the core purpose. There's no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters with enums, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how parameters interact, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand tool behavior fully.

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 compensate. It only mentions 'optional filters' generically without explaining what the parameters (limit, eventType, sourceType, includeConsumed, sessionId) mean or how they affect the query. This adds little value beyond the schema's structure, failing to clarify semantics like what 'includeConsumed' entails or how 'sessionId' is used.

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 the tool 'Get recent event history with optional filters' which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('event history'), but it's vague about what 'event history' entails in this context (e.g., game events, system logs). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_recent_interactions' or 'poll_events', leaving ambiguity about scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_recent_interactions' and 'poll_events', the description lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context implied at best.

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