event_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses non-blocking behavior, the visibility/comm-scope filtering rule, and cursor pagination. It omits auth/prerequisite requirements and any rate-limit or error behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences plus a docs pointer; the core purpose and the most surprising behavior (non-blocking, scope filtering) are front-loaded with zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers pagination, blocking behavior, and visibility. What remains thin is guidance on choosing among the many sibling event/inbox readers, but nothing required to invoke the tool is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters including cursor, limit, stream, and filters. The description adds only the high-level 'cursor-paginated page' framing, not parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Read) and resource (a page of the event log) plus a distinguishing behavioral trait: non-blocking. It implicitly separates itself from event_wait, but it never names that sibling or event_cursor explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 '(non-blocking)' tag implies you use this when you don't want to wait, but no when-to-use/when-not statement or explicit alternative is given. The visibility rule ('actors outside your comm scope are omitted; yours and system events always show') is useful context but is about results, not tool selection.

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