github_activity_list_public_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to indicate that the tool is read-only, returns paginated results (though schema implies it), or any rate limit or authentication implications. The minimal description leaves agents uninformed.

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 extremely concise (three words), but it lacks necessary context for proper tool selection. It saves space but at the cost of usefulness, making it a borderline case between concise and insufficient.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about return values and scope. It fails to mention that it returns a list of events, what event types are included, or any filtering capabilities.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (per_page, page) with links to pagination docs. The description adds no additional semantic meaning, so the 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 'List public events' specifies a verb and resource but is overly generic. It does not clarify that these are GitHub public events, nor does it differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'list_public_events_for_user' or 'list_public_events_for_repo_network'. An AI agent would need further context to select this tool accurately.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, authentication needs, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate. The description offers no decision-making support.

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