Get Events

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

Discloses append-only nature, polling behavior, absence of push/streaming, long-poll mechanism with wait_seconds, and response format { events, next_cursor }. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint: true, openWorldHint: false).

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?

Description is moderately sized and well-structured, with each sentence providing essential guidance. Slightly verbose but every part adds value. Could be tightened slightly.

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 complexity (polling loop, cursor, long-poll) and lack of output schema, description covers core usage, response structure, and intent well. Minor gaps: no error handling or rate limits, but still highly complete.

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% with parameter descriptions, but the description adds crucial context: explains 'since' as a cursor from previous call, 'wait_seconds' for waiting on human action, and the overall polling pattern that ties parameters together.

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?

Clearly states the tool polls a pane's append-only event log for human actions like form submissions, approvals, and picks. Distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_pane_state' which deals with state, not events.

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?

Explicitly describes the poll loop with and without 'since' parameter, and how to use 'wait_seconds' for long-polling. Also notes there is no push/streaming in MCP, so this is the only way to get round-trip results.

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