rlm_task_events

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

No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavior. It indicates the tool filters to task-related htask events like create, claim, complete, etc., and returns canonical events. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it explain error conditions or what happens when no events are found. For a read tool, this is minimally adequate but lacks thoroughness.

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 three concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose, follows with the event type filter, and ends with a practical usage hint. Every sentence adds 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 no output schema, the description should hint at the return structure. It lists event types but not fields like timestamps, status, etc. The tool is part of a large sibling group, and the description could better clarify its niche versus rlm_swarm_events or htask tools. It is adequate for a simple events list but leaves some gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'since' parameter is for incremental updates and listing the event types that are filtered, which gives context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on swarm_id or limit beyond what the schema provides.

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 retrieves 'canonical htask status change events for a swarm', naming the resource and action. It lists specific event types (create, claim, complete, etc.), but the term 'legacy task surface' could be confusing and it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'rlm_swarm_events' which might serve a broader purpose.

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 usage context by suggesting the 'since' parameter for incremental updates and mentions calculating 'tasks closed since last check'. However, it does not describe when to avoid using this tool or offer explicit alternatives among the many sibling task/event tools.

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