Read recent sanitized failover events

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

The description discloses that credentials, subscriptions, server addresses, and exit IPs are never returned, which adds key behavioral context beyond the annotations. This sanitization detail is valuable and not covered by the readOnly and idempotent hints.

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 two sentences, direct, and free of extraneous information. It front-loads the action and limit, and the second sentence adds a crucial constraint without padding.

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?

With annotations, an output schema, and a short description, the essential behavior is covered. It clarifies the sanitization scope and limit, but lacks detail on parameter usage and when to choose this over siblings. Still, for a simple read tool, it is reasonably complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only hints at a limit of 100 (matching the 'limit' parameter) but does not explain config_path or include_node_names. The description does not sufficiently compensate for the missing schema-level parameter documentation.

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 the tool reads local sanitized events with a maximum of 100, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_status or list_pools. The verb 'Read' and resource 'sanitized events' are specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the description implies it is for reading local sanitized events. It does not mention exclusions or when a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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