jamjet_get_events

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It declares read-only, no side effects, returns an immutable audit trail in sequence order (oldest first). It details each event's fields and the enumeration of possible 'kind' values, providing comprehensive behavioral insight.

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 somewhat lengthy but each sentence serves a purpose. It is front-loaded with the core function, then usage guidance, then output structure, then alternative tool. While efficient, a slight reduction in detail (e.g., the full kind enum) could maintain clarity while being more concise.

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 lack of output schema, the description must explain return values. It thoroughly describes the return type (JSON object with 'events' array) and each event's fields, including the allowed values for 'kind'). It also clarifies ordering and immutability. For a debug tool, this is fully complete.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds extra value by specifying the accepted format for execution_id ('exec_<uuid>' or bare UUID) and noting the tenant_id default and requirement to match the execution's tenant, which clarifies proper usage.

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 the full, ordered event log for a workflow execution. It specifies it is read-only with no side effects, and distinguishes itself from sibling jamjet_get_execution (which provides a high-level status summary), using specific verbs and resource identification.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'to debug execution behavior, understand which nodes ran and in what order, or inspect approval decisions.' It also directly provides an alternative: 'For a high-level status summary, use jamjet_get_execution instead.'

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