list_simulation_run_events

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing a listing operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains pagination mechanics, default perPage usage, status interpretations, and caveats about tunnel/proxy services. This enhances transparency without contradicting annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose but becomes verbose with debugging details and caveats. While informative, some sentences could be more streamlined, and the structure mixes usage instructions with debugging advice, reducing overall efficiency.

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 complexity (6 parameters, pagination, debugging needs) and lack of output schema, the description does a good job covering key aspects: purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and parameter hints. It compensates for missing output schema by explaining response fields, though it could be more organized.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds some semantic context, such as recommending maximum perPage and explaining pagination with 'after,' but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'list simulation run events in Paddle.' It specifies the resource (simulation run events) and verb (list), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_simulation_runs' or 'get_simulation_run_event,' which reduces the score from a 5.

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 implied usage guidance by detailing pagination, filtering, and sorting parameters, and it mentions debugging with status and response details. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use instructions compared to alternatives like 'get_simulation_run_event' or 'list_simulation_runs,' leaving some ambiguity.

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