get-events

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly notes that start/end are Unix timestamps, implying a read operation. However, it does not discuss pagination, rate limits, response format, or side effects, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 three sentences, front-loading the main purpose and providing examples. It efficiently uses words without redundancy.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on filtering options (sources, tags), pagination (limit default is 100), and what the response contains. For a tool with moderate complexity, more param info is needed.

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%, placing the burden on the description. It only explains start and end as Unix timestamps, ignoring other parameters (priority, sources, tags, unaggregated, excludeAggregation, limit). No hints on valid values or behavior of optional params.

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 queries Datadog events within a time range, listing examples (deployments, alerts, configuration changes, comments) and use cases. This gives a clear purpose and distinguishes it from more specific sibling tools like get-audit-events or get-ci-pipeline-events.

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 example use cases ('what happened yesterday', 'show deployment events') but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives. It implies broad applicability but lacks explicit guidance for choosing among siblings.

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