Get events for a heartbeat run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds modest value by specifying the Paperclip operation and authorization class. No contradictions. However, it does not detail what 'events' entail or any side effects beyond what annotations cover.

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 very brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the title, but it omits crucial parameter details. It is concise but at the expense of completeness, earning a mid-range score.

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?

The tool has one parameter with no description coverage, and the description does not clarify the return value or the nature of 'events'. Annotations provide safety context, but the overall description is insufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional knowledge. Output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 0% description coverage, and the description fails to explain the single parameter 'path.runId'. It does not indicate how to obtain the runId or what constitutes a valid runId. The description provides no additional meaning beyond the schema structure.

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 it gets events for a heartbeat run, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like pc_get_heartbeat_runs_by_run_id (which gets the run itself) and pc_post_heartbeat_runs_by_run_id_cancel (which cancels a run). The verb 'get' and resource 'events' are unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as pc_get_heartbeat_runs_by_run_id_log for logs or pc_get_heartbeat_runs_by_run_id_issues for issues. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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