Get Event Log

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Query' aligns with these. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context, such as ordering, pagination defaults, or what filters do, which is left entirely to the schema.

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, 'Query the project event log with filters,' which is immediate, front-loaded, and free of fluff. Every word earns its place, making it an exemplary model of conciseness.

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 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a list of events), default behavior, or filtering semantics, forcing the agent to infer from parameter names. This is insufficient for a moderately complex query tool.

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?

All 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's 'with filters' is generic and does not add any meaning beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 queries the project event log with filters, providing a specific verb and resource. It is not tautological, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like get_node_history or what_changed, so it falls short of a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_node_history or watch_graph_changes. There are no mentions of exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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