Get Simulation Events

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It does add the scope constraint that these are Simulation-mode events (not live/realtime data) and enumerates the event outcome types. It omits whether simulation must be running/stepped first, how events are ordered, and the hard 500-event cap — all behavior an agent would want before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the returned fields in one tight sentence, then examples. The examples earn their place by mapping to concrete agent intents, though the third one ('Did any packet get dropped?') maps to no parameter and is the weakest.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the parameter surface is fully documented. The remaining gap is workflow context — this tool sits among set_simulation_mode, step_simulation, and reset_simulation, and the description never says the simulation must be in a stepped state for events to exist.

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 100%, so the schema already documents limit, start, and protocol including protocol examples. The description's 'Show only the ARP events' example loosely reinforces the protocol filter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List Simulation-mode events (the Event List)' followed by an enumeration of the fields returned (time, device, origin, protocol, outcome). The parenthetical ties it to the Packet Tracer UI concept, which helps recognition. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_simulation_event_details, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 three example questions ('Where did the ping go?', 'Show only the ARP events', 'Did any packet get dropped?') imply realistic usage contexts, which is better than nothing. However, usage is only implied — there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no exclusion or routing to the obvious alternatives (get_simulation_event_details, get_console_log).

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