get_event_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful traits: ring-buffered with 500 entries, 'bridge-reinstalled' events filtered out by default, and cursor-based pagination via 'since'. It does not mention output shape or access requirements, but it provides solid behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Three dense sentences contain all the essential facts with no wasted words. The core behavior is front-loaded, and parameters are summarized economically before the important default-filtering caveat.

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 tool with no required parameters and a fully documented schema, the description covers the important invocation details: source, level, kind, limit, since, and the default filter behavior. It does not describe the event return shape, and there is no output schema, but the tool is still sufficiently specified for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value above the schema by explaining the ring-buffer behavior, the cursor semantics of 'since', and the non-obvious default exclusion of 'bridge-reinstalled' events, which clarifies how the 'kind' parameter behaves.

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 a specific resource ('recent BridgeEvents from the live preview') and a verb ('Returns'), and it is easy to understand what the tool produces. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'tail_events', which is likely the closest alternative.

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 conveys the context in which the tool is useful (reading recent live-preview events) and details optional filters and pagination. It gives no direct guidance about when to prefer another sibling like 'tail_events' or 'get_runtime_errors', so the selection knowledge is only implicit.

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