get_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds context about filtering by severity and time range, but does not conflict with annotations. No additional behavioral traits like rate limits or auth needs are disclosed, but annotations cover the main safety profile.

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 concise with a clear header and bulleted args. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's simplicity (3 params, no required), rich annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It lacks mention of result limits or pagination, but that is minor for a filtering tool.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: hours (default 24), severity (values 'critical', 'warning', 'info'), and target (optional, uses config default). This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic type and default.

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 it retrieves recent vCenter/ESXi events filtered by severity. The [READ] prefix and 'Get' verb specify the action and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_alarms and list_* tools which deal with different resource types.

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 explains how to use parameters (hours, severity, target) and their defaults, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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