Get Channel Events

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the type of data returned (event log with connection, message, and error events). It does not contradict annotations, and no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior) are provided.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy. Ideal length for a simple get tool.

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's simplicity, the description is mostly complete. It communicates the purpose and types of events. However, in a context with many sibling tools, a brief note on when to choose this over neuron_get_channel or neuron_get_channel_status could enhance completeness. Still, it adequately covers the key aspects.

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% with all parameters described. The description does not add any new meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format or constraints). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get the event log for a channel' and specifies types of events (connection, message, errors). It is specific about the resource and verb. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like neuron_get_channel or neuron_get_channel_status, the name and description imply a focus on events, which is sufficient.

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, nor does it mention any context for usage. There is no when-not or exclusionary information, which is a significant gap given the large number of sibling tools.

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