task_event_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that events include faults, tasks older than a month may lack history, and the return format. Missing explicit mention of read-only nature or potential side effects, but the behavior is adequately conveyed.

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 well-structured with a brief intro, a note, and separate sections for Args, Returns, and Examples. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 4 parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, return structure, and a usage caveat. It lacks details on permissions, error handling, or pagination behavior for large limits, but remains fairly complete.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description provides clear parameter docs: task_id as UUID, limit default 10, filter_errors and filter_non_errors booleans with descriptions. It explains their purpose but lacks detail on behavior when both filters are set simultaneously.

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 'Get recent events for a task,' specifying a concrete verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like task_list (which lists tasks, not events) by focusing on events and including debugging context.

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 notes that events include faults and are useful for debugging transfer issues, and adds a constraint about task age. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, so some guidance is implicit.

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