get_alert_events

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it notes that event order is not guaranteed and that pagination is unsupported to prevent expensive queries. This enhances transparency about limitations and performance considerations, though it could mention rate limits or authentication needs.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by important behavioral notes and return value details. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 complexity (a read operation with two parameters), the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema (implied by the Returns section), the description is complete. It covers purpose, behavioral traits, and return values, providing sufficient context for effective tool selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters (alert_id and limit). The description does not add any additional meaning or semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. With high schema coverage, a 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('events for a specific Panther alert'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_alert' (which retrieves alert metadata) and 'get_alert_event_stats' (which provides statistics). It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to retrieve events for a specific alert) and implicitly distinguishes it from alternatives by specifying its scope. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific sibling tools as alternatives, such as 'list_alerts' for broader queries.

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