event_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description clarifies that this tool returns raw events, not business interpretations, which is a useful behavioral note. However, it doesn't disclose other behaviors like pagination details (beyond the eventid_till parameter), rate limits, or whether operations are read-only (likely safe, but not stated). Lacking annotations, more behavioral context would be expected, so a 3 is appropriate.

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: '查询原始历史事件；业务状态解释使用问题事实明细工具。' It is appropriately short and front-loads the primary purpose, then provides a routing hint. No unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly naming the alternative tool, but overall it is 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?

Given the tool complexity (13 parameters, no required params) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides essential context by stating the raw data nature and directing to the right sibling for interpretation. However, it lacks details on common query patterns, default behaviors (e.g., time range defaults), or how the cursor pagination works, which are not fully covered by the schema. The schema is rich but the description could compensate with more operational context, so a 3 is fair.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, but many are terse (e.g., 'hostids' just says '主机ID', 'severities' says '严重级别列表'). The description does not add additional context beyond what's in the schema. For instance, it doesn't explain the relationship between 'value' and 'eventids' or clarify acceptable formats for 'time_from' beyond the schema's mention. Thus, the description adds minimal value over the schema, warranting a baseline 3.

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 '查询原始历史事件' (query raw historical events), which clearly indicates the tool's purpose of retrieving raw event data. It also mentions that business status interpretation should use another tool ('问题事实明细工具'), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools that provide interpreted or summarized data. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tool 'get_problem_fact_detail', so differentiation is partially implicit.

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 advises using a different tool for business status interpretation ('业务状态解释使用问题事实明细工具'), giving clear guidance on when NOT to use this tool. However, it doesn't elaborate on when exactly to use this tool versus other event-related siblings like event_monthly_report or event_daily_report, so the guidance is present but not exhaustive.

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