kommo_get_events

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

Description implies read-only behavior ('feed', 'auditoria'), but does not explicitly state that the tool only reads data. No annotations exist to clarify. Could be more transparent about being a non-destructive operation.

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?

Very concise (two sentences plus a list), front-loaded with key use case. Could benefit from slight structuring (e.g., bullet points for event types) but remains efficient.

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?

No output schema, and the description does not explain the format of returned events. For a list tool, this is a minor gap. However, given the complexity (8 params, no nested objects), the description covers enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and key filters.

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 covers 75% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds valuable context: using created_by=0 for bot actions and listing common event types like lead_status_changed. Some parameters like 'to' and 'from' are only described in schema; no extra value from description.

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?

Describes a specific resource (event feed/audit log) and verb (get). Clearly states it is essential for understanding bot actions, distinguishing it from other tools in the set that do not provide event retrieval.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: filter by created_by=0 for bot actions, lists common event types. However, does not mention when not to use this tool or alternative approaches, though no sibling event tool exists.

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