get_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavior: the journal is ordered, paging is cursor-based via an end offset, and the response includes total_size used to poll for new events. It says nothing about whether the call blocks, how limit interacts with the cursor, permission or auth requirements, or what happens if task_id is unknown.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is on the edge of being too terse for a three-parameter tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 three-parameter read tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves too much unspecified: parameter meanings, return shape beyond total_size, and the difference from get_event_page. It gestures at the polling pattern but does not complete the picture.

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 all three parameters (task_id, limit, cursor) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description hints at cursor semantics through the polling note, but never explains what task_id identifies or what limit does, leaving the caller to guess.

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: 'Read Shuttle's ordered event journal.' That is clear about what the tool returns (an ordered event stream). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_event_page, which sounds like it also reads events, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.

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 second sentence implies an incremental-polling workflow ('Save total_size to poll after the current end'), which is real usage guidance. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_event_page or get_transcript, and no exclusion or prerequisite guidance.

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