Query Inception review events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: default sort order (most recent first), the shape of each returned event, and the mutual-exclusivity rule that reference_id/reference_time cannot be combined with start/end.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then filtering, then paging – a logical order with no filler sentences. It is dense but slightly cramped, packing return fields, filters, and two paging modes into four sentences.

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?

With 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return record structure and both paging approaches. An agent has everything needed to construct a correct call without opening the 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it explains the two paging strategies (offset vs. reference_id + reference_time) and that message_ids correspond to event type IDs discoverable via inception_list_event_types. That cross-tool linkage is genuine added value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Queries the controller's review (event) log') and enumerates the returned fields (messageId, category, type name, description, who/what/where), which is more than a name restatement. It routes the agent to the sibling inception_list_event_types for resolving message IDs, distinguishing it from the other siblings.

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?

Gives clear usage context: filter by time range, category, message IDs, or involved item IDs, and use inception_list_event_types to find IDs. It also names the preferred paging mechanism (offset, or reference_id + reference_time instead of start/end). It lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool versus siblings like inception_get_system_info, so it falls short of a 5.

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