get-events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that events are 'structured logs' and can be of types like 'information, error, debug, or critical,' but fails to specify critical details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose but includes a bulleted list that repeats concepts (e.g., 'analyze error patterns' appears twice). Some sentences could be more efficient, and the structure is somewhat repetitive, though it remains reasonably focused.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and usage context but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and explicit sibling tool differentiation. It's adequate for basic understanding but has clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying filtering and analysis capabilities, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples for parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose as 'Retrieve and analyze a list of events filtered by parameters,' which specifies the verb (retrieve/analyze) and resource (events). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on events rather than alerts or signals, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 explicit usage scenarios (investigate logged events, analyze error patterns) and implies context (SEQ server events). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'get-alertstate' or 'get-signals,' and doesn't mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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