read_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List audit Events' indicates a non-mutating read operation and 'audit' adds useful context, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, time-format semantics, or any restrictions/requirements. The behavior is not contradicted, but the disclosure is minimal.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, object, and optional filters with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the most important information appears first.

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 a simple read-only listing operation with all parameters optional and an output schema available, so the description is serviceable. Still, without annotations and with 0% schema coverage, the one-sentence description leaves gaps such as pagination/limit behavior and time-format expectations that an agent may need when invoking with filters.

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 must compensate for the five parameters. It maps event_type, task_id, and since/until through 'type, task, or created time range', which adds the 'created time' meaning to since/until. However, it does not clarify the expected string/time format or describe the limit parameter at all.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('audit Events') and names optional filtering dimensions, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It is clearly distinct from siblings like emit_event, which writes events rather than reading them.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by type, task, or created time range' implies the appropriate use case for retrieving audit events with filters. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., emit_event or list_state) or mention any exclusions, so the guidance is only implied.

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