get_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states that events are retrieved; it does not explain authentication requirements, what 'dispatched events' means, whether the operation is read-only, or what the response contains. This is minimal and leaves important behavior unknown.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is concise and every word contributes, though it is so brief that it sacrifices useful context.

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 tool with five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set, this description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'dispatched events' are, when to choose this tool, or how it relates to similar request-scoped tools, making it hard for an agent to invoke confidently in ambiguous situations.

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 100%, with each parameter already documented (e.g., requestId as 'Clockwork request ID' and auth parameters clearly labeled). The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 'Get dispatched events for a request' clearly identifies a getter operation scoped to a specific request and names the resource type ('dispatched events'). It is distinct from many siblings at a high level, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related tools such as get_timeline or get_http_requests.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 37 sibling tools, including other request-scoped getters like get_request and get_timeline, the absence of any usage direction or exclusions leaves an agent to guess which tool is appropriate.

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