get_raw_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions pagination and the non-full-report nature, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention authentication needs, side effects, or error behavior. This leaves significant gaps.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's core function and a key limitation.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain what 'raw SPX events' are, what 'key' refers to, how pagination works in practice, or what the return format looks like. Sibling tools are not mentioned as alternatives, and there is no guidance on when this debug view is appropriate versus a full report. This is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 71% (5 of 7 parameters documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details; it only hints at pagination via the word 'paginated'. It does not compensate for undocumented 'key' and 'timeoutMs' parameters, but the existing schema descriptions handle most of the burden.

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 'Return a paginated debug slice of raw SPX events' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings that deal with reports, profiles, and hot paths. The added caveat 'This never returns the full report' further clarifies its scope and purpose.

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 provides clear context that this is a debug-oriented tool returning partial raw events, and explicitly notes it never returns the full report. However, it does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use this tool, so it stops short of being fully explicit.

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