memory.list_raw_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description has full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool is read-only, how output is structured (though an output schema exists), or any side effects. The simple 'list' verb weakly implies no state changes, but this is not explicit.

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 only one sentence and very short, which is efficient but at the cost of missing essential information. It is under-specified for the tool's role among many siblings.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks key context: language consistency, the definition of 'landing zone', and the tool's place in the workflow. A new agent would struggle to know when and why to use this tool.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The agent receives no semantic context beyond the parameter name and type, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 action (list) and resource (events from the landing zone) and is distinct from sibling tools, as no other sibling explicitly targets raw events. However, the description is in Portuguese while the tool name is English, which may cause confusion for English-speaking agents.

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 like memory.query or memory.get. It does not mention the landing zone's role or whether this is for debugging, which leaves the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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