ecosystem_repo_events

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

Discloses event types and the discrete operations they represent, but does not cover ordering, pagination (beyond limit), or read-only nature. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and misses these behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded purpose and an informative list of event types. No wasted words; highly efficient.

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 and 100% parameter coverage, the description provides useful context (event types) but omits ordering or temporal defaults. Still sufficient for an event listing 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?

Both parameters are already described in the input schema with satisfactory detail (default limit, repo_id description). The description adds no additional semantics beyond listing event types, which is not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states 'Return event history for a single ecosystem repo' and enumerates the event types, making the tool's specific verb-resource-action unambiguous. Distinguishes from generic event_list or scan_history siblings.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like ecosystem_scan_history or event_list. Usage is implied by the description but lacks direct comparisons.

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