get_recent_events

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this while adding context: it surfaces the newest logged events with type, timestamp, and subject, allowing the agent to trace network changes. This goes beyond the bare annotation, though it does not detail ordering guarantees, pagination, or response envelope.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and parameters. The only minor issue is that the Args section repeats the schema descriptions almost verbatim, which is somewhat redundant but not harmful.

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 read-only list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what events are returned, what fields are included, how to scope by site and device, and which alternative tools to use for different needs. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, and all three parameters already have clear descriptions in the input schema. The Args section in the description largely duplicates the schema text without adding new meaning, so the description does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the structured schema.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Return recent network events' for a site, and enumerates the event types covered (connections, roams, admin actions). It also distinguishes itself from get_alarms and analysis tools, making sibling differentiation clear.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use get_alarms when you only care about active fault/warning alarms' and 'use get_optimization_recommendations or analyze_network_issues for interpreted, actionable findings.' It also clarifies the read-only nature and defaults, leaving little ambiguity.

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