get_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses meaningful behavior: chronological ordering, substring-match filtering, and cursor-based pagination. It does not mention namespace/limit semantics, but these are minor for a read-only paging tool with an output schema.

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 sentences, each with a distinct purpose: ordering, filtering, and pagination use case. No filler and the most important distinction is front-loaded.

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 an output schema, the description sufficiently covers ordering, filtering, pagination, and a motivating scenario. The only notable gap is the behavior of the namespace parameter (default '' likely cluster-wide), but this does not block correct invocation for the common case.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description compensates for two parameters: involved_object (substring match) and cursor (continue from previous next_cursor). It adds no meaning for limit or namespace, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action ('Page through Kubernetes events') and resource, with clear scope (chronological order, oldest first). The Kubernetes events resource is distinct from all sibling tools, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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 clear usage context: filter by involved_object, continue pagination with cursor, and the incident-timeline scenario. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the event resource is unique among siblings and the incident use case clarifies when it is relevant.

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