get_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the buffer is bounded and in-memory, there is no network/Discord access, and the tool supports cursor-based pagination.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the core action, then provide pagination guidance and a clear boundary of what the tool does not do. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 description is adequate for a simple cursor-based read tool: it explains what is read, how to paginate, and what is out of scope. It does not explicitly describe the response shape or name the response field that carries nextCursor, but this is a minor gap given the lack of an output schema and the bounded-buffer simplicity.

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 clarifies that `after` represents a cursor value (`nextCursor`), which the bare numeric schema does not convey. `limit` is not explicitly described, but its default, minimum, and maximum are present in the schema and its purpose is reasonably inferable from the pagination context.

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 names an exact action and resource: 'read the bounded in-memory event buffer.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from Discord/historical fetching, making it clear how this tool differs from the sibling get_* tools that access guilds, channels, or voice settings.

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?

It gives a concrete usage pattern: 'Pass nextCursor as after on subsequent calls' for pagination. It also states exclusions ('does not connect to Discord or fetch historical messages'), though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling or an exact when-to-use condition.

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