who_did_what

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that events without a resolvable actor are omitted, which is an important behavioral trait. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, or whether it is read-only (likely safe). Still, it gives a clear model of the output.

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?

Two sentences: the first clearly states purpose and the second details output behavior. No filler, perfectly front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (4 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description adequately explains the core functionality and return format. It could mention default behavior for the 'limit' parameter, but overall it is complete enough for a query tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It only reiterates the overall purpose.

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 uses a specific verb ('join') and resource ('recorded events') and directly answers a natural language query ('who did what...'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by framing as a 'convenience join' over events, which is unique among the extensive sibling list.

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 suggests when to use the tool (to answer a specific question), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like query_events or search_by_time. The guidelines are implied but not fully explicit.

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