hb_list_events

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so 'sends nothing' largely repeats that structured signal. The description does add value by stating the return payload shape (type and one-line summary), which no output schema provides. However, it says nothing about ordering, completeness guarantees, or what happens when filters match nothing.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the optional filters and the safety note. Every sentence adds information, and there is no filler.

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 zero-required-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers the return shape, the filter behavior, and the read-only nature, which is enough for correct invocation. The main missing piece is disambiguation from hb_describe_event, which the description should include but currently leaves out.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description repeats the portal example and adds the notion of matching against 'type or summary' for the text filter, which slightly enriches the schema wording but does not go beyond it.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (webhook events Hub can send), with the scope quantified (59) and the return shape named (type + one-line summary). It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling hb_describe_event, which covers the same resource space.

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 sentence about optional filtering implies the browse-vs-filter workflow, and 'Knowledge only: sends nothing' clarifies that this is a discovery call. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus hb_describe_event, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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