get_event_definitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the connection prerequisite but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format is, how pagination behaves beyond the schema, or any potential side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sentences: the first states the core function, the second gives a necessary usage hint. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 list tool with pagination and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the response contains, whether results are scoped to the selected connection, or anything about the data returned. The connection prerequisite is useful but does not compensate for the lack of return-value and behavioral context.

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?

All three parameters (page, query, perPage) have descriptions in the schema, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter information, so the baseline score 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 the tool retrieves Graylog event definitions, using the verb 'Get' with a specific resource. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling tool 'get_event_notifications' by focusing on definitions rather than notifications, though it does not explicitly mention that distinction.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Use 'use_connection' first to select a connection.' However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_event_notifications' or 'search_events', and no exclusions are stated.

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