get_map_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states only the core action and does not disclose return format, ordering, inclusion criteria, or potential errors. This is insufficient for a read operation where the agent might need to know what 'all events' entails.

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 a single focused sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it highly 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks details about the return type or behavior (e.g., whether it returns an array, whether hidden events are included). No output schema exists, so the description should explicitly mention the shape of the result. Sibling tools provide some context, but the description itself is incomplete.

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 schema has zero description coverage for mapId, and the description only implies that mapId identifies the specific map. It does not explain what the numeric ID represents or how it relates to other map tools, but it does clarify the parameter's role in the operation, which is more than the schema provides.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all events') with a clear scope ('from a specific map'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_map_event (singular) and search_map_events (search-based 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?

The description implies the primary use case (retrieve all events for a given map) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling names provide context, but the description itself does not state when to use this tool versus get_map_event or search_map_events.

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