aap_get_job_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds substantive context about granularity, per-host task results, and the JSON return format, which enriches the behavioral understanding beyond the annotations.

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 compact and well-structured, with a leading purpose sentence, a useful comparison, and clearly separated Args/Returns sections. Every line contributes value, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 read-only event listing tool with annotations, an output schema, and a sibling tool, the description adequately covers purpose, usage context, parameters, and return format. It provides enough information for an agent to select and invoke it correctly without major gaps.

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 description explicitly enumerates the parameters and gives one-line meanings (job_id, event_type filter, pagination), compensating for the 0% schema description coverage at the top level. While the nested schema already documents job_id and event_type with descriptions, the description ensures all parameters are understandable without deep schema inspection.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Get' and identifies a concrete resource: structured events from an AAP job (tasks, roles, failures). It explicitly differentiates from stdout output, which directly addresses the sibling tool aap_get_job_output. This makes the purpose 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?

'More granular than stdout - shows individual task results per host' provides clear context for when to choose this tool over a raw stdout viewer. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state exclusions, but the comparison is strong enough for an agent to infer the right use case.

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