lattice_get_database_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses it returns lifecycle history covering specific events, but lacks information about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. The read-only nature is implied by 'history' but not explicitly stated.

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 two concise sentences. The first defines the tool's output, the second gives usage guidance. No filler or redundant information.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains purpose and usage context. However, it could mention return order (e.g., chronological) or how the limit parameter affects results. Still, it is adequate for an agent to understand the basic function.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context that the 'id' is a database instance ID, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema offers. 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'database instance's lifecycle history', listing specific event types (status transition, failure, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lattice_get_database_instance or lattice_get_database_logs by positioning itself as the starting point for investigating unexpected states, which is unique.

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 context: 'START HERE when a database is in an unexpected state: this is what explains how it got there.' This tells the agent when to use it, though it does not specify when not to use or name alternatives directly.

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