List design host events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation, but the description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a plugin context is required), side effects, or the format of returned events. It adds some clarity about event types but lacks depth on behavior beyond the basic read nature.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place.

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's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is somewhat sufficient but misses key details: the structure of the returned events, whether the host parameter filters results, and any assumptions about plugin context. The description covers the 'what' but not the 'how' of results or the meaning of the parameter, leaving gaps that could lead to mis-invocation.

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 has one optional parameter `host` with enum values, but the description makes no mention of it. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to explain how the host parameter affects the tool's behavior (e.g., filtering events by host). The parameter is self-documenting in terms of allowed values, but its semantic effect is unclear, and the description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'recent selection, document, and write status events from plugins.' It clearly states what events are covered, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle contexts or exports. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling that might also read events, so a slight deduction for lack of explicit differentiation.

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, no conditions for selection, and no exclusions. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. Given the lack of any usage direction, this is a minimal score.

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