task_event_filter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Returns events' and lists allowed values for one parameter. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or any side effects, nor does it explain pagination, sorting, or default filter 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 a single long sentence that mixes required parameters and allowed values without clear structure. It is not front-loaded and is harder to parse. Could be split into multiple lines or sections for clarity.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return format, pagination details, default values, or how the filter works. Relying solely on the schema (which has weak descriptions) is insufficient for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 100% description coverage, but each description is minimal (just 'query param ...'). The description adds value by listing all allowed values for analyticsEventAction in a long string. However, it incorrectly asserts that q, from, size are required (they are not) and uses 'from_' in schema but 'from' in description. Overall, adds some meaning but with errors.

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 states 'Returns events' and provides the endpoint path, but does not specify what kind of events (task events) or distinguish from sibling filter tools like incident_event_filter or task_endpoints_event_filter. The purpose is somewhat clear but lacks specificity.

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 claims 'Required: q, from, size' but the input schema shows these parameters are optional with defaults of null, creating confusion. There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., other event filters), and no context on prerequisites or use cases.

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