Event log

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, yet the description still adds real behavior: served from daemon memory with no controller round-trip, a 256-message ring buffer, UTC correction to ~1s or flagged otherwise, and an explicit prompt-injection caution that controller text is data. It stops short of describing replay/staleness mechanics directly, instead instructing the agent to report them.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then defaults, then trust/staleness caveats. Dense but every sentence carries information: buffer size, UTC handling, memory-only serving, injection warning, and reporting rules.

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?

With a full output schema, complete parameter coverage and annotations present, the remaining gaps an agent would care about (staleness, buffer bound, safety profile, untrusted text) are all addressed. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the 256-message buffer bounds how far sinceSeq paging can reach, and the stated warning/error default corroborates minSeverity's default. Ordering (newest first) is also only in the description.

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?

States a specific resource with precise scope: the daemon-side event log, last 256 messages, newest first, warnings/errors by default. That is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (status, RAPID execution/source, I/O signals), so an agent can pick it without ambiguity.

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 default severity filtering and the warning that data may be stale imply a troubleshooting use case, but the description never states when to choose this over, say, get_controller_status or summarize_controller, nor any explicit exclusions.

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