get_event_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only describes retrieval and filtering but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, performance implications, authentication requirements, or any side effects.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. However, the second sentence 'Ключевой инструмент диагностики' adds minimal new information and could be integrated or omitted.

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 simplicity (5 params, no required fields, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the purpose and filtering. However, it lacks details on default behavior of parameters (e.g., limit defaults) and output format.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states that the tool retrieves event log records with filtering by period, event, and user, and labels it as a key diagnostic tool. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_exchange_log, providing specific verb-resource-purpose clarity.

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 implies use for diagnostics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. With many sibling 'get_' tools, guidance on selection is lacking.

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