search_ci_test_events

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, required permissions, or response format. The description merely states the function without behavioral context.

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 (one sentence plus examples) and front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more structured with separate lines for parameters or usage notes.

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 the complexity (nested parameters, pagination) and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain filter syntax, sort options, or pagination behavior, leaving the agent without key context for correct invocation.

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 parameter schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description only mentions 'with filters' without explaining the filter object, sort, or pagination parameters. This leaves the meaning of the parameters largely unclear.

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 searches CI test events and provides concrete example use cases, making its purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_ci_tests, which also deal with CI tests.

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 gives specific use cases (flaky tests, test failures, duration analysis) but fails to mention when not to use this tool or alternatives among the many sibling search and list tools.

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