task_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context that the data is an append-only audit trail, implying historical immutability, but omits ordering, pagination/limit behavior, and permission requirements. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but incomplete.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loads the verb and resource, and contains no filler. The size is appropriate for a routine read tool and easy to scan.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It does not clarify event time range, ordering, how limit affects pagination, or what the returned audit trail contains, leaving key invocation details underspecified.

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 schema itself provides no parameter meaning. The description only loosely hints at the id parameter via 'optionally for one task' and says nothing about id format or the limit parameter's default, maximum, or behavior. It does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 ('Read') and resource ('append-only task audit trail'), with optional scoping to one task. Clear, but does not explicitly contrast itself with task_list, task_status, or task_stats siblings that also expose task-related data.

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?

Only mentions that the tool can optionally be scoped to one task. It gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions or exclusions, so the agent must infer when this is preferable to task_list or task_status.

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