get_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It mentions events 'since your last read,' which implies the tool tracks read state, but it does not explicitly state whether calling this tool updates that state or has other side effects. This is a meaningful gap.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Events since your last read') and gives helpful examples. The parenthetical 'or since since_id' is slightly redundant but not wasteful. Overall it is 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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits the critical behavioral detail about whether the 'last read' marker is updated, and it does not mention event ordering or pagination. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves the agent uncertain about side effects.

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 carries the burden of explaining since_id. It does explain that the parameter overrides the 'last read' baseline, providing some meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify inclusivity/exclusivity of the ID or how to obtain a valid ID.

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 events (jobs finishing/failing, combat, research, supply warnings) since a specified ID or last read. It identifies the resource and verb distinctly, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like wait_for_events.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wait_for_events or status. It implies polling for events but does not state when this is appropriate or what the trade-offs are.

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