security_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('return recent...') and implies no side effects. The ordering and use case are clear, but there is no explicit mention of safety (e.g., non-destructive), though the verb 'return' suggests safe behavior.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and provides a concrete use case, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool has a simple schema (one optional param) and an output schema, the description is mostly complete for understanding the tool's purpose and basic behavior. However, it omits details about the limit parameter and does not explain the output format, relying on the output schema to fill gaps.

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?

The input schema has one optional parameter 'limit' with no schema description (0% coverage). The description does not mention this parameter or its effect on results. It fails to add meaning beyond the schema, which is insufficient given the low coverage.

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 returns recent security events from the guard, ordered newest first. It specifies the resource ('security events') and the action ('return'), and distinguishes from siblings like memory tools and quarantine_list by focusing on auditing logs for actions like blocking, redaction, or quarantine.

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 explains when to use the tool ('useful for auditing why a write was blocked...'), providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the sibling tools are distinct in purpose.

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