get-events

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

No annotations exist; description carries full burden. It states 'Requires start/end as Unix timestamps' which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects (though query suggests read-only), rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the response contains. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise with two sentences. It covers purpose, examples, and key requirement. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for better scanning. No unnecessary words.

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 8 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It only addresses start/end, ignoring other params and return format. An agent would lack information about filtering and response structure.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. Only start and end are mentioned as 'Unix timestamps'. The other six parameters (priority, sources, tags, unaggregated, excludeAggregation, limit) have zero explanation. This severely limits an agent's ability to correctly use them.

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 'Query Datadog events within a time range' and provides examples like 'deployments, alerts, configuration changes, and comments'. It suggests use cases such as 'what happened yesterday'. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get-audit-events, the focus on general events is implied. The verb and resource are specific.

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 provides concrete use cases: 'what happened yesterday', 'show deployment events', correlating incidents with changes'. This gives agents good context for when to invoke. However, it does not include when not to use or mention alternative tools for specific event types.

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