ecosystem_repo_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the purpose and event types, but does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, ordering (e.g., chronological), pagination, or error handling. The behavioral profile is severely under-disclosed for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first sentence states purpose concisely, and the second lists event types to set expectations. The description is front-loaded and efficient. Every sentence earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers the essential purpose and event types. Missing details like default ordering (e.g., most recent first) or behavior for invalid repo_id prevent a perfect score, but the tool is simple and context is mostly complete for use.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds context beyond the schema by listing the event types that may appear, which helps interpret the repo_id parameter. However, it does not clarify how the 'limit' parameter interacts with results (e.g., default ordering, truncation). Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters well.

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 returns event history for a single ecosystem repo, specifying the resource ('single ecosystem repo') and the action ('return event history'). It also lists the discrete event types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ecosystem_repo_get (current state) and event_list (broad events). The verb 'return' and resource are precise.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ecosystem_repo_get for current state or event_list for cross-repo events. There are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparisons with siblings. The agent must infer usage from the name and context.

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