fluig_process_event_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the source table and that the tool reads non-authoritative data. However, it does not describe the return format or pagination, but for a simple legacy read tool, the behavior is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant wording. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds usage guidance, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, its legacy status, and the preferred alternative. It does not explain error conditions or result format, but given the context and sibling guidance, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, and the description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. The parameter descriptions in the schema are already informative, so the description meets the baseline expectation without needing to elaborate further.

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 action ('Read'), the resource ('source of a process event from the event_proces table'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool fluig_process_events_xml by labeling this as legacy and directing to the preferred alternative.

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?

Explicitly guides when to use ('legacy path') and specifies the preferred alternative (fluig_process_events_xml) for the authoritative definition, making the usage decision unambiguous.

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