Query OT events

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses pagination behavior (`total_count`, `has_more`, `end_cursor`, `after`), the structure of returned events, and the potential for very large result sets. This goes beyond the schema and is crucial for correct invocation and response handling.

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 well-structured with clear paragraphs and bullet points, front-loading the purpose and then providing pagination details and filter vocabulary. Every sentence contributes valuable information without redundancy or fluff, making it easy to scan.

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 complexity of an 11-parameter query tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage, pagination, and filter semantics. It doesn't need to describe return values because the output schema exists. The guidance about narrowing large result sets is critical and complete enough for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaningful explanation for a few key parameters (severity_at_least, event_type, since/until) and the `after` cursor in the pagination context, but does not elaborate on other parameters like `dst_ip`, `src_ip`, `search`, `resolved`, `policy_id`, or `limit`. Thus it partially compensates but leaves many parameters undisclosed.

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 OT detection events matching the filter criteria, newest first,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `get_event` (for full detail on a single event) and other query tools by focusing on detection events and including filter examples.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this to investigate alert windows, policy-firing patterns, source/dest IP context, or events in a specific time window.' It also guides toward `get_event` for full detail, and advises narrowing filters before paging, providing clear context and alternatives.

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