event_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It says 'Read' which implies a non-destructive operation, and mentions the config requirement, but does not disclose what happens if the config is missing, any potential side effects, or ordering/pagination behavior. This is adequate but lacks richer 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 two concise sentences with information front-loaded. The purpose is stated first, followed by use cases and a configuration note. No wasted 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 no output schema, the description could clarify what the returned data looks like, but it covers purpose, use cases, and a prerequisite. For a simple read tool with well-documented parameters, this is sufficient, though slightly more detail about output format would make it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning, such as implying 'recent' for count and explicitly naming the Application and System sources, but it doesn't significantly go beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 recent entries from the Windows Event Log, specifying the Application and System logs. It separates this from sibling tools by focusing on a specific log source and diagnostic use case, making its purpose 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?

It explicitly mentions when to use the tool (diagnosing crashes, service failures, driver issues, .NET errors) and states a prerequisite (allow_event_log: true). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use cases are clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings.

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