warp_events

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds 'Auth required' and full event history scope. No contradictions, but the description does not detail output format or limits, relying on schema. With annotations, bar is lower; this adds moderate value.

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?

Description is a single sentence with front-loaded action and parenthetical examples. It is concise and readable, though could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for event types).

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?

No output schema exists, so description should hint at return structure. It mentions event types (pickups, in-transit, deliveries) but not array structure or pagination. Adequate but not fully 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?

The schema has one parameter (shipment_id) with clear description. Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds no extra semantics. 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full tracking event history for a shipment', with examples (timeline of pickups, in-transit updates, deliveries). It distinguishes from sibling tools like warp_track (likely simpler status) and warp_status (current status).

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 when needing a full event history but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like warp_track. It mentions 'Auth required' but lacks direct comparison or exclusions.

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