list_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces it with '[READ]'. It adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations don't cover: the 'truncated: true' signal when more events exist than returned, which matters because there is no output schema. It still omits auth requirements, rate limits, and pagination strategy.

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 tight opening sentences front-load the resource, ordering, and truncation behavior, followed by a compact Args block. Nothing is padding; every sentence adds information.

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 2-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors (ordering, truncation flag, param meanings). However, it says nothing about what an event record contains, how 'target' maps to config, or any limits on 'top', leaving some gaps for an agent reasoning about results.

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 carries the full burden, and it largely does: 'top' is explained as the count of events newest-first, and 'target' is explained as a config target name with 'omit for the default'. The default value of 50 for 'top' is left to the schema but the semantics are covered.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Most recent SolarWinds Orion events') with ordering ('newest first'), and the SolarWinds qualifier distinguishes it from the zabbix_events sibling. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with that sibling, so it's clear but not fully disambiguating.

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 '[READ]' marker and 'omit for the default' note imply read-only retrieval of recent events, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no sibling alternative is named. Usage must be inferred from the ordering hint.

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