List events

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: returned events include sides, documented payloads, and guides; unprefixed host lifecycle and bus events are included; reserved prefixes are listed. This goes well beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core behavior first, then provides useful examples and the special lifecycle value. Every sentence adds value, and the reserved-prefix note is a useful extra without bloat.

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?

The description covers scope, prefix values, lifecycle filtering, and output contents, but the documentedOnly parameter remains unexplained and there is no output schema to clarify the return shape. For a simple read-only listing tool this is mostly sufficient, but one parameter is still underspecified.

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 prefix parameter is well enriched with examples and the special 'lifecycle' value, but documentedOnly has no schema description and the description does not explicitly define what it filters. With 50% schema coverage, the description compensates for prefix but leaves documentedOnly ambiguous.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('events'), then clarifies the scope: by prefix, all events, lifecycle-only, and reserved prefixes. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on event enumeration rather than searching, building, or resource management.

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?

It gives concrete usage context: pass a prefix like open77:map or open77:chat, or pass prefix=lifecycle for host lifecycle events. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the usage context is clear enough for correct selection.

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