get_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It describes the query operation and parameter meaning, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. This leaves moderate transparency.

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 structured with a clear docstring listing parameters. It is fairly concise for the detail provided, though the list format could be slightly more compact. Overall, it is easy to scan and well-organized.

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's complexity (5 params, 2 required), the output schema exists (so return values are covered), and sibling tools are listed, the description is complete. It covers the main usage and parameter details, though it omits behavioral context like idempotency or pagination.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does so thoroughly, explaining each parameter: program UID (with hint to find it), org_unit UID, limit with default, and optional date bounds with ISO format. This greatly enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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's verb ('Query') and resource ('event data for a program'), and specifies it uses the tracker API. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_analytics ('analytics') and get_enrollments ('enrollments'), but does not explicitly contrast with all siblings, so score 4.

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 provides some guidance by mentioning that the program UID can be found with list_programs and that org_unit scopes the query. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements and does not reference alternative tools like get_enrollments for events vs. enrollments.

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