Get interrupts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying results are 'bounded' and that 'playerID is correctly applied as WCL sourceID,' which clarifies an important filter behavior beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the playerID clarification is concise and valuable. Every phrase 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?

Given the tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage, the description leaves meaningful gaps. It clarifies playerID and boundedness, but it does not explain what 'interrupt evidence' looks like, how abilityID filtering behaves, or what defaults apply. Annotations cover safety well, so this is not inadequate, but it is not fully complete either.

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 64%, so the schema already documents many parameters. The description adds meaningful clarification for playerID by specifying that it maps to WCL sourceID, and 'bounded' hints at the maxEntries/maxPayloadBytes behavior. However, it does not add semantic value for undocumented parameters like abilityID, translate, maxEntries, or maxPayloadBytes, so the added value is partial.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get bounded interrupt evidence.' This is specific and distinguishes it from generic event tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_casts or get_events. The word 'bounded' adds useful scoping but is somewhat ambiguous.

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 like get_events or get_casts. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or the conditions under which an agent should prefer this tool. The only contextual hint is the mention of interrupts, which is implicit rather than explicit.

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