list_error_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the project-wide search scope; it says nothing about result volume, ordering, or how the cursor/limit behave in practice.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core scope statement is front-loaded before the use-case qualifier. Nothing here repeats the schema or wastes tokens.

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 no output schema, the description plus the fully documented schema cover what an agent needs to invoke it. Pagination mechanics and return shape are the only mild gaps, and the cursor parameter already signals pagination.

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 description coverage is 100% — full, limit, query, cursor and project_slug are all documented in the schema with defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List error events in a project') and adds a scope qualifier — searching across all events — that separates it from issue-scoped siblings like list_issue_events. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than crisp.

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 clause 'without knowing the issue ID' gives a concrete selection condition: reach for this tool when you lack an issue identifier and cannot use issue-scoped listing tools. No explicit alternative is named and no exclusions are stated, so it falls short of a 5.

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