Get Events

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond the annotations by mentioning 'append-only' and listing three distinct actions (log, changelog, post_mortem). However, it lacks details on side effects, error handling, or output format. The annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive nature, which the description does not contradict.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences with a clear overall purpose followed by a list of supported actions. It avoids redundancy and is easy to parse.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what log or changelog return. It only hints that post_mortem produces a 'structured markdown report'. It also omits details about pagination or result types, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 already provides descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is high (coverage 100%). The description does not add meaningful clarifications about parameter usage, such as which parameters apply to which action. It repeats the parameter list implicitly but without extra semantic value.

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: inspecting an append-only event audit ledger, querying structured changesets, and generating session post-mortems. It also lists three specific actions (log, changelog, post_mortem) which distinguish it from siblings like query_graph or get_analytics.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It lists actions but does not explain under what circumstances each should be invoked, nor does it differentiate from other query/analytics tools. Users must infer usage from the actions.

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