get_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating events are 'append-only' and reads occur 'after an event cursor,' which clarifies pagination semantics and immutability beyond the annotations. However, it does not detail response format or error conditions.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core behavior with no filler or redundant information.

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 read-only event-pagination tool with good annotations, the description captures the essential semantics: append-only events, cursor-based reading, and task association. It does not describe the return shape, but the description is functional for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, given the schema fills in parameter details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters. It relates 'after an event cursor' to the after_id parameter and 'task events' to task_id, but it omits any mention of the limit parameter, leaving its semantics unexplained. The description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 the specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource 'task events' and scoping phrase 'after an event cursor,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_tasks or get_task. The append-only note further clarifies the tool's specific niche.

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 implies the tool is for consuming events incrementally after a cursor, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools like list_tasks are not mentioned, so the guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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