tb_events

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It indicates events are 'authorized' and 'immutable', and ordering is 'stable revision order', but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or any side effects, though 'query' implies a read.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Query', providing a clear core without unnecessary length.

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 complex schema with nested objects and many parameters, the description is too minimal to provide adequate context. It does not explain the purpose of the events, how parameters relate, or what the output will be, especially with no output schema.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the many parameters (e.g., board_id, actor, cursor, event_type). There is no indication of parameter usage or meaning, leaving users to guess.

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 queries event deltas, indicating a retrieval operation. The mention of 'direct-v1' and 'stable revision order' adds specificity but may be cryptic for some users.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of others, nor any conditions or prerequisites. It does not differentiate from sibling tools that might also deal with events.

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