get_flow_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions optional filtering but omits details like pagination, whether events are returned exhaustively, rate limits, or any idempotency/read-only characteristics. This is insufficient for a complete understanding.

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?

Description consists of two concise sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every word is necessary; no filler or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema) and the complete schema descriptions, the description is largely sufficient. It could briefly note that results are a stream or that it's read-only, but it covers the essential purpose and filter option. No major gaps.

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%: both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description restates that 'since' is an optional cursor/timestamp but adds no meaningful context beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly uses 'Get' verb and identifies the resource as 'event stream/history for a flow'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_flow' (general info) and 'create_flow_event' (creation), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Description states optional filter by cursor/timestamp but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_workflow_events' or how it differs from 'get_flow'. Usage context is implied but exclusions are absent.

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