mist_get_site_events

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description aligns as a read operation. It adds value by specifying the types of events returned (configuration changes, user activities, system alerts) and the flexibility of filtering by site_id. This extra context helps the agent understand what data to expect.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no redundant or superfluous information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description is largely complete. It outlines the resource type and scope. It could mention pagination or time range constraints, but those are covered in the schema. Lacks a brief note about ordering or rate limits.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions are already present. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves events for an organization or site, specifying the resource (events) and scope (org/site). It mentions event types (configuration changes, user activities, system alerts). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like mist_get_alarms or mist_get_device_stats, which might also retrieve event-like data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or contrasting use cases with sibling tools. The agent has no context to decide if this is the right tool for a specific event-related query.

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