get_events

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It only states it's a 'get' operation (non-destructive), but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error behavior, or response structure. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Extremely concise, single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the key action and object. Every part is necessary.

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 explain return properties or usage notes. However, parameters are well-covered by schema descriptions. Minimal but adequate for a straightforward list tool with clear schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'Optionally filter by event name' is redundant with the event_name parameter description). No value added.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves individual custom event records with properties and optionally filters by event name. Distinguishes from siblings like get_event_counts (aggregated) and get_event_timeseries (time series) by emphasizing individual records.

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?

Implied usage for retrieving detailed event records, but no explicit guidance on when to use this over related tools (e.g., get_event_counts, get_event_timeseries) or when not to use it. Missing alternative naming or context.

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