github_issues_list_events

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

No annotations are available, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, event types, or read-only nature. The description fails to provide the behavioral context that an AI agent needs to understand the tool's side effects or constraints.

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 at only 4 words. While brevity is generally good, it comes at the cost of missing necessary context and structure. The single sentence does not earn its place due to lack of informative content.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide comprehensive context. It is completely inadequate, lacking any explanation of return values, prerequisites, or behavior. This severely limits an agent's ability to use the tool correctly.

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?

All parameters (owner, repo, issue_number, per_page, page) are described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, but the schema descriptions are adequate. 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 issue events' clearly indicates the tool's action and resource (listing events for an issue). However, it does not differentiate from closely related sibling tools such as 'github_issues_list_events_for_repo' or 'github_issues_list_events_for_timeline', which could lead to confusion for an AI agent.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listing events for a repo or timeline. The description lacks any contextual cues or explicit recommendations, forcing the agent to rely on the tool name alone.

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