tg_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the ordering ('newest last') and the semantic bounds for the 'since' parameter (ISO timestamp lower bound), but it does not describe the output structure or what constitutes an 'event' beyond 'incoming messages.' It also doesn't clarify what 'the watcher' is. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise: a single purpose sentence followed by a clean 'Args:' section with two bullet-style explanations. No wasted words, information is front-loaded, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 simple 2-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient, but it leaves key context unexplained (what 'the watcher' is, what events look like). It also doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like tg_history. Given the complexity is low, this is adequate but not 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, but the description fully explains both parameters: 'limit' as 'how many events' and 'since' as 'ISO timestamp lower bound' with an example. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions, though the explanations are terse.

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 returns 'recent incoming messages captured by the watcher, newest last,' which identifies a specific resource (watcher-captured incoming messages) and ordering. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get,' and doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the purpose is 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?

The description implies usage context ('captured by the watcher') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tg_history or tg_mentions. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so guidance is merely implied rather than stated.

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