mission_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Append-only event log' usefully suggests that events are immutable and reading them is safe, but it does not disclose ordering, tail semantics, repo filtering, or whether the tool is strictly read-only.

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 very short, front-loaded, and contains no filler words. It is efficiently phrased, though its brevity means it omits operational details that other dimensions must compensate for.

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 tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and a large sibling set, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how tail works, what repo does, what event ordering to expect, or how this differs from mission_status or mission_plan_view.

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 0%, and the description mentions none of the three parameters. mission_id, tail, and repo remain semantically undocumented beyond their names and types, so the description adds no value for parameter understanding.

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 phrase 'Recent mission events' clearly identifies the resource being accessed, and 'append-only event log' distinguishes this from mission planning, execution, and retry siblings. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list,' but the meaning is strongly implied.

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 this tool is for reading recent event history for a mission, especially given the 'append-only event log' phrasing. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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