Get Pixel Events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'recent events' and 'for debugging' but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as pagination, result limits, or response structure. Given the annotation coverage, the lack of further description is partially acceptable, but the description still doesn't mention anything beyond the basic action.

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 sentence followed by a minimal Args list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes no fluff or redundant details. Every word earns its place, making this an example of efficient, well-structured documentation.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what 'events' look like in the response (e.g., fields, time range, limits), but it doesn't. It also omits details like whether the events are a list or include metadata. For a debugging tool, the agent would benefit from knowing the response format and the meaning of 'recent'. The description is too sparse to be fully actionable.

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 50% because response_format has a full description, while pixel_id has none. The description's 'Args' section only repeats 'pixel_id (string): Pixel ID', which is essentially the parameter name and provides no additional meaning (e.g., where to find the pixel ID or expected format). The description does not compensate for the missing schema description, failing to enrich parameter understanding.

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 the action ('Gets'), the resource ('recent events received by a pixel'), and the context ('for debugging'). It distinguishes itself from pixel-related siblings like meta_get_pixel and meta_get_pixel_stats by focusing specifically on events. However, it doesn't specify what constitutes 'recent' or the event types, leaving a slight ambiguity about the exact scope.

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 only mentions 'for debugging' as the use case, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like meta_get_pixel_stats or meta_list_pixels. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instruction, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer the intended usage from the tool name and sibling context, which is insufficient.

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