get_top_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention sorting direction, whether the result is limited (e.g., top N), how aggregation works, or whether empty/missing event names are included. This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's behavior.

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, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It directly states the tool's purpose, making it appropriately concise 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?

Given the tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output format, the meaning of 'period' in context, or how this tool differs from other stats tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so all 11 parameters are already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning or usage hints beyond what the schema provides, landing at the baseline of 3.

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 returns 'Top event names by total event count for the period.' This is a specific resource (event names) and operation (ranking by count), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_top_os or get_top_countries.

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 implies usage when the user needs top event names by count, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_event_props or get_metrics. There are no exclusions or alternative mentions, so the guidance is only implied.

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