get_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a read, which implies non-destructive behavior, but it doesn't confirm read-only status, how limit interacts with pagination, or whether results are ordered. It also doesn't mention any error conditions, rate limits, or what happens when after_event_id exceeds the latest event. The description is minimal and leaves key behavioral aspects unexplained.

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, concise sentence with no redundancy, and the core purpose is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified: it omits essential usage details that a tool of even moderate complexity should include. While conciseness is good, it sacrifices too much information, making it only minimally viable.

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's simplicity (two optional parameters, no required fields) and the presence of an output schema, the description needn't cover return format. But it still lacks context on how to use the cursor for multi-page reads, whether events are returned in ascending order, and how this relates to watch_events. The 'after an event ID' phrase provides a hint, but without explicit guidance on pagination or usage patterns, the description is incomplete for an agent that needs to use this correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It only hints at the meaning of after_event_id ('after an event ID') but says nothing about limit, its default, or the format/range of after_event_id. Without this, an agent cannot reliably construct a correct call beyond guessing at the defaults. The description adds almost no semantic value beyond what the property names inherently suggest.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'durable task/artifact lifecycle events', with a specific qualifier 'after an event ID' that defines the cursor. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, the phrasing distinguishes it from a streaming tool like watch_events by indicating it reads a past snapshot. It's specific enough for an agent to infer its core purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like watch_events or list_tasks. The description implies incremental fetching via 'after an event ID' but doesn't state prerequisites, typical usage patterns, or when to prefer a different tool. An agent is left to infer that this is for retrieving historical events, but the absence of explicit context or exclusions is a notable gap.

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