get_problem_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior not in the annotations — result ordering (newest first) and inclusion of resolved events — but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or truncation at the limit.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; scope and ordering come first. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness is also the source of the missing detail elsewhere.

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?

Four parameters, 25% schema coverage, no output schema, and a non-obvious severity default leave too much unstated. An agent could call this tool correctly in a mechanical sense but would not understand that sub-warning events are excluded by default or how results are bounded.

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 description coverage is only 25% (only host is documented), so the description carries most of the burden and does almost none of it. It never mentions hours, limit, or the min_severity filter — and the default of min_severity="warning" silently drops lower-severity events, a gotcha an agent would not anticipate from "problem events in a time window."

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?

Names the resource precisely (problem events), scopes it to a time window, and states the ordering (newest first). The parenthetical "including resolved ones" implicitly distinguishes it from get_active_problems, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer from "including resolved ones" that this is the historical counterpart to get_active_problems, and nothing indicates whether it or get_triggers is the right source for current incident state.

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