maltego_get_recent_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds context about reading from the event bus's bounded buffer and describes the return format, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 concise, well-structured with Args and Returns sections, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary text.

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 read-only polling tool, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, and return format. It lacks details on buffer capacity or error handling, but the overall completeness is adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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 description repeats schema parameter descriptions but adds usage context for `since_seq` and explains the return format (JSON vs markdown). Since schema coverage is 0%, the tool description compensates somewhat, but the additional value is incremental.

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 investigation events and lists example event types. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like maltego_subscribe_events, but the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 incremental polling with `since_seq`, providing clear usage guidance. It does not specify when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for typical use.

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