Get Hermes run events

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

With no readOnlyHint=true (marked false), no destructive hint, and no idempotent hint, annotations provide limited safety info. The description adds the key behavioral detail that this is non-streaming and that it 'writes redacted receipts' as a side effect—valuable context not covered by annotations. It doesn't detail auth requirements or rate limits, but the receipt-write disclosure is useful.

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 compact sentences with no waste. The most important facts—it's a typed GET events wrapper, non-streaming, writes redacted receipts—are front-loaded. Could arguably add a sentence about what kinds of events are returned, but it's appropriately concise.

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?

The tool has an output schema (present) and full param coverage, so the description doesn't need to explain return structure. The non-streaming clarification and 'writing redacted receipts' side effect add important context. It's reasonably complete for a read-oriented events tool, though it could mention pagination behavior via the 'after' cursor more prominently.

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 100%, so all four parameters (run_id, after, limit, include) already have descriptions in the schema (cursor opaque, max events, event kinds enum, run id format). The description itself adds minimal parameter meaning beyond noting it returns 'non-streaming event metadata.' Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 this is a typed GET /v1/runs/{run_id}/events wrapper returning non-streaming event metadata for a Hermes run. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a streaming SSE/WebSocket proxy, which separates it clearly from the large sibling set.

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 explicitly says 'not a streaming proxy,' establishing when NOT to use it (streaming scenarios). Among siblings like hermes_api_runs_get and hermes_api_runs_start, this one's job of fetching event metadata is reasonably clear. It doesn't name specific alternative tools but the 'not streaming' exclusion helps selection.

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