get_recent_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 discloses the tool shows timestamps, tool names, and key details, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, caching, or any side effects. It is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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: two sentences front-loading the core purpose and specifying the data returned. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, event types, and displayed details. It lacks explicit return format (e.g., array of objects), but the context is largely complete. Minor gap prevents a 5.

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 tool has one parameter (limit) with 100% schema description coverage, including default and max values. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves the most recent Claude Code activity events, specifies the types (tool calls, prompts, errors), and mentions the details returned (timestamps, tool names, key details). This verb+resource+scope structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_activity_summary or get_files_touched.

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 implicitly indicates use for viewing recent events, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_activity_summary for summaries, get_files_touched for file-level detail). No when-not or alternative suggestions are given.

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