quipu_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: reading does not advance a consumer cursor (a state side-effect an agent must know), and it discloses parameter precedence ("since overrides consumer"). It stops short of return shape, pagination, or default limit behavior.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the core action and the cursor caveat, then parameter disambiguation, then the sibling pointer. No filler, no repetition of schema structure, and every sentence adds distinct information.

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 5-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the disambiguation that matters (root vs graph, since vs consumer, group semantics) and annotations cover safety. Gaps remain around limit's meaning/defaults and what an event record looks like, but nothing blocks a correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does for most: since/consumer precedence, types as a comma-separated event-type filter, and the important clarification that group is an episode group rather than a graph selector. Only limit is left entirely undefined, which keeps it off a 5.

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 and resource ("Read a bounded batch of ROOT's events") plus the critical scope qualifier "without committing a consumer cursor." It explicitly names the sibling that handles the graph case (quipu_graph_events), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear routing rule: root-scope events here, named-graph events via quipu_graph_events. The non-committing behavior also implicitly separates it from quipu_events_commit, though that sibling is never named and no explicit exclusion against the commit variant is stated.

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