basecamp_get_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 behavioral transparency. It only says 'Get recent activity/events' and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (though 'Get' implies it), whether pagination or rate limits apply, or what constitutes an event. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and clearly states the scope. There is zero redundancy, and every word contributes meaning.

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 only two optional parameters and no output schema, so the description is the primary source of context. It explains the purpose and scope, but it does not mention the nature of the returned events, ordering, or how the limit parameter behaves beyond what the schema states. For a simple list-style tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, with both parameters documented. The description adds a little context by framing the scope as 'account or a specific project,' but this mostly mirrors the schema's 'Optional: Get events for a specific project.' The value over the schema is minimal, so the baseline score 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 gets recent activity/events with an explicit scope (account or specific project). The verb 'Get' and resource 'events' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like basecamp_list_messages or basecamp_list_todos by focusing on the activity feed.

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 implies usage for retrieving recent activity, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended scenarios, so the agent must infer that this is the go-to for events/activity.

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