read_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly communicates that the operation is a read, does not auto-follow loops, does not send messages, and does not control UI. These are non-obvious behavioral traits beyond what the tool name alone conveys. It doesn't cover rate limits or return semantics, but the output schema provides structural details, and the description effectively sets behavioral boundaries.

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 sentence that leads with the primary action and resource, then adds critical behavioral exclusions. It is wholly efficient, with no wasted words; every clause earns its place.

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?

Although the description establishes the tool's core purpose well, it is incomplete for effective use: none of the 6 parameters are explained, and the lack of any parameter semantics makes it difficult to craft correct calls in the face of 0% schema coverage. There is no guidance on how to construct a batch (e.g., using cursor) or how output relates to parameters. The output schema exists but doesn't mitigate the missing parameter context.

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 input schema has 6 parameters with zero description coverage, and the description provides no information about what any parameter means. There is no mention of 'chat', 'limit', 'cursor', 'talker', 'since_time', or 'since_local_id'. With 0% schema coverage and no compensating detail in the description, an agent cannot infer parameter semantics from this description alone.

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 a specific action: 'Read one incremental event batch'. It identifies the resource (event batch) and modality (incremental, one batch), distinguishing it from siblings like timeline or read_chat_range. The explicit exclusion of 'no follow loop, sending, or UI control' further demarcates its scope.

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 clear usage context: it reads a single incremental batch and explicitly disclaims follow-loop, sending, and UI control behaviors. This tells the agent when to use it (single batch read) and, by exclusion, when not to use it (when following a loop or sending messages is needed). It doesn't name specific alternative tools, but the exclusions are strong guidance.

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