get_run_events

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'ordered' as a behavioral detail, but does not explain pagination, event types, or whether it returns the full history, which leaves gaps beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous words, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimal but lacks important context about how this compares to poll_run_events or whether the event stream is complete or limited. It is adequate for the basic action but leaves uncertainty about edge cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate, but it does not describe run_id beyond what the schema already shows. The phrase 'for a run' hints at run_id's purpose, but offers no additional meaning like allowed formats or how to obtain a valid ID.

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 action ('Return') and the resource ('ordered event stream for a run'). It is specific but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like poll_run_events or get_run_result, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as poll_run_events, get_run, or get_run_view. There are no usage contexts, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, so it provides minimal decision support.

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