hello_aigent_event_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds important traits: it is an audit (read-only), newest first, agent-attributed, and requires an admin token. However, it does not disclose the exact return structure or error behavior, though these are partially inferable.

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 followed by a terse requirement note. It includes no filler and conveys purpose, scope, ordering, attribution, and authorization in 17 words, earning a high score.

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 simple audit tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: what it lists, the event types, ordering, attribution, and auth requirement. It does not describe the return fields, but since there is no output schema, a brief note on output would improve completeness; still, the current description is sufficient for basic usage.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'filterable' aligns with the type parameter but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. The limit and feed parameters are already described.

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 identifies the tool as a filterable audit of feed events, enumerating the event types (subscribe/fetch/action/unsubscribe) and specifying the ordering (newest first). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hello_aigent_subscribers (subscriber lists) and hello_aigent_report_event (event reporting/writing).

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 gives clear context that this is an audit log for feed events, implying use when reviewing past event activity. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or provide exclusions, such as noting that hello_aigent_report_event is the write counterpart. The admin token requirement is a useful prerequisite but not a usage guideline for tool selection.

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