list_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only discloses pagination and global scope. It does not mention read-only behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 concise sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is front-loaded with key info but lacks completeness.

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 list operation with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description omits crucial context such as pagination details (page size, token usage), output format, or any filtering capabilities. Incomplete relative to sibling tool richness.

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 0%; the description does not explain the single optional parameter agent_token (e.g., its purpose or effect). The parameter's semantics are not conveyed beyond the schema's type definition.

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 clearly states 'List system events' with specific modifiers 'paginated, across all environments', distinguishing it from siblings like get_environment_events (scoped to one environment) and get_activity (single event).

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 for listing events across all environments, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_environment_events, read_audit_log, or list_activities. No when-not guidance is provided.

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