bus_events

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation and the phrase 'provenance event log' hints at an audit trail, but ordering, retention, pagination behavior, and access requirements are all unstated.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps elsewhere rather than earning extra credit.

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 simple one-parameter read tool this could suffice, but with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented limit, the definition leaves the agent guessing about return shape and result volume. It should at least explain the limit and what a provenance event contains.

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 single parameter 'limit' has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The agent gets no explanation of what the limit bounds (events returned?), what happens beyond the default of 50, or whether truncation is indicated.

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 verb (read) and resource (the provenance event log) plus a parenthetical clarifying its content as who did what and when. This distinguishes it from siblings like bus_search or bus_status without naming them, so it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this log versus bus_search, bus_status, or bus_channels, and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer that this is the audit-trail endpoint from the phrase 'provenance event log' alone.

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