events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden, and it does an excellent job. It discloses the return shape ({

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 structured into clear paragraphs and each sentence serves a purpose: explaining scope, return format, time formats, filtering options, and truncation behavior. No fluff or redundancy. The key behavioral details are front-loaded at the beginning.

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 six parameters (one required), the fact that there's no output schema, and no annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains what the tool returns in full, how to handle the output, how to specify a time range, and all options. An agent has enough to call this tool correctly without misunderstanding. Combined with a clear output shape, it is adequate for any reasonably cautious agent.

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?

Although the schema description coverage is 0%, the description completely compensates. For each parameter, it explains the meaning and format (e.g., `since`, `until` accepting duration strings like `2h` or ISO-8601, `kinds` as an array of strings like `app.activated`, and `value*/selected_text` being truncated). The description is more informative than the schema itself, making parameter usage unambiguous.

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 states the tool's purpose: returning raw activity events between a time range, oldest first. It specifies the resource (raw activity events), the verb (returns), and the ordering. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only one that retrieves raw event data; the siblings (such as status, apps) are clearly different purposes. The description is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly explains how to use the tool, including time formats, filters (kinds, app), and constraints (max_value_chars, limit). While it doesn't explicitly say 'use this when you need raw events instead of status or app lists', the extensive parameter and return-format guidance implicitly makes the usage context highly clear, and the sibling names suggest different resources. The absence of explicit 'when not to use' is minor given the clarity of the alternatives via the schema and names.

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