deployment_get_request_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns ALL events for a request (implying no filtering), which is useful, but says nothing about pagination behavior, volume, or ordering beyond what the sort/page params imply.

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?

Three short, front-loaded lines with no filler; the purpose appears first and the endpoint last. The endpoint line is slightly redundant with the title but harmless.

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?

For a read-only tool whose annotations cover safety and whose schema covers all parameters, the description is adequate. But with no output schema, the return shape ('all the events') is barely sketched, and there is no differentiation from sibling event-log tools, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 page, size, sort, and requestId are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 verb ('Fetch') and resource ('Request events' for a given requestId), which is clear on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like deployment_get_event_logs or deployment_get_user_events, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as deployment_get_event_logs. The endpoint path is the only contextual hint, and it doesn't help select between similar event-related tools.

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