get_event_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the events table records every state change with actor and reason, which is useful context, but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or pagination despite a Limit parameter existing.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the investigative use case as supporting detail. Slightly compact relative to the tool's complexity, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With five parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description should clarify what a caller gets back and how Since/Limit shape the result. It partially gestures at the return content (events with actor and reason) but leaves the parameter mechanics unexplained.

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% across five parameters, one of which (Since) is a nested object. The description only hints at EntityType via the entity-kind list; it says nothing about EntityId, Limit, Since, or as_agent, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (forensic event log for a specific entity) and enumerates the entity kinds it covers (task / finding / attempt / plan / phase). The purpose is unambiguous, though it does not name any sibling tool to distinguish itself from.

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?

Gives a concrete triggering scenario: investigating 'why did this task end up in needs_human_review'. That is a clear usage context, but there is no guidance on when not to use it and no reference to adjacent tools such as get_stuck_work.

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