events_recent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only says the events are 'recent' and 'live'. It does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, whether results are capped, whether it blocks, or any auth/permission requirements for an observation surface.

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 efficient sentence with the resource and audience front-loaded and no wasted words. It is arguably too terse for the burden it must carry, but the structure itself is clean.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a parameterized observation tool with zero annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description leaves the agent guessing about filtering scope and result limits. It is under-specified relative to the tool's complexity.

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 never mentions either parameter. The meaning of 'limit' (default 100) and especially 'session_id' (does omitted mean all sessions?) is left entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return recent live operation events') and names the audience ('observers and control UIs'), which tells an agent what it gets back. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like session_list or gimp_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for observers and control UIs' implies a usage context (polling for live state rather than inspecting a session or a status tool), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given relative to the many sibling tools. The agent must infer that this is a monitoring/polling surface.

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