apic_get_events

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

The description discloses that results are limited to 100 most recent events, sorted by creation time, and include severity breakdown. With no annotations provided, this is sufficient behavioral context for a read-only retrieval tool, though it could explicitly state it has no side effects.

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 concise at 4 lines, front-loaded with purpose, then args and return details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is returned, the limit, and sorting. It could optionally mention authentication requirements, but overall is adequate.

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?

The description adds essential meaning to the single parameter time_range by specifying units (hours) and default behavior (24h). Since schema coverage is 0%, this fully compensates, making the parameter clear and actionable.

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 it retrieves recent events from the APIC event log. While it distinguishes from sibling tools like apic_get_faults or apic_get_audit_logs implicitly by resource difference, it does not explicitly differentiate, which would be helpful given the many sibling tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, when-not-to-use, or comparisons to sibling tools such as apic_get_faults or apic_get_audit_logs.

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