get_workflow_events

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It does not disclose whether events are filtered, paginated, or if there are side effects. The word 'Get' implies read-only, but no explicit safety or destructive hints.

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?

Extremely concise (3 words). No wasted sentences, but the brevity may omit essential details. Still, it's front-loaded and efficient.

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 domain (workflow events) and presence of an output schema, the description should explain what events are, filtering criteria, or link to documentation. It is too minimal to be complete.

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 has 1 parameter (params) with no description coverage (0%). The description does not explain what the 'params' object contains. Baseline 3 for zero-required-params, but lack of any parameter guidance reduces score from potential 4.

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 states 'Get public workflow events', which clearly indicates the verb (get) and resource (public workflow events). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_workflow' (single workflow) and 'list_workflows' (list all workflows) by specifying 'events' and 'public' scope.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_workflow, list_workflows). The context of 'public' events is implied but not explicitly contrasted with other tools that might handle private or filtered events.

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