github_activity_list_public_org_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, data freshness, or what constitutes an 'event'. The minimal description leaves uncertainty about the tool's behavior.

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 (3 words), but this is not necessarily a virtue. It under-specifies key details that could be included without verbosity. While it wastes no words, it sacrifices completeness.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide context about the nature of the events, authentication requirements, and pagination. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with insufficient information to fully understand the tool's 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 has 100% description coverage, with 'per_page' and 'page' having detailed descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely states the parameters exist. Baseline 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 clearly states the action (list) and the resource (public organization events). It is specific enough to distinguish from similar tools like 'github_activity_list_public_events' (global) and 'github_activity_list_org_events_for_authenticated_user' (authenticated), though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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. It lacks context on typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not mention that this is for public events only, nor compare to authenticated event retrieval tools.

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