invariance_case_events_list

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which already signal a safe, non-committal read operation. The description adds context about the semantic nature of events and their evidence-layer role, but does not disclose pagination limits, default ordering, or behavior when a case has no events. It neither contradicts annotations nor enriches them substantially.

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 efficient sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose, the second adds valuable interpretive context. No filler or redundant phrasing. The description earns its length and is easy to scan.

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?

For a read-only list tool with a simple schema and no output schema, the description gives enough context to understand what events are ('semantic workflow events') and their role ('queryable facts over the run/node evidence layer'). It does not mention pagination or result format, but those are partially covered by the cursor parameter description. Overall, it is functionally complete for a non-destructive operation.

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 schema describes 'id' and 'cursor' but not 'limit'. The description does not compensate by explaining the meaning of limit or how the parameters interact. With 67% schema coverage, the description adds no parameter-level value beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('semantic workflow events') and an explicit scope ('attached to one case'). The added phrase 'queryable facts over the run/node evidence layer' gives a nuanced definition that distinguishes it from case-level getters and workflow-level event tools.

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 implies usage contexts (e.g., when you need events for a specific case) by stating 'attached to one case', but it does not explicitly contrast it with likely alternatives such as invariance_case_evidence or invariance_workflow_event_list. No exclusions or conditions are provided, so an agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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