list_mastery_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add context. It confirms a read-only operation and adds the revision-scope constraint, but does not disclose details such as event ordering, pagination, or whether the event list is sorted.

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 sentence with no filler and gets the core resource and action across clearly. It is concise, though the phrase 'recorded changes' is slightly vague and could be more explicit.

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?

An output schema exists and the annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is mostly sufficient for a simple read tool. A brief note on what counts as a 'revision' or how to find revision IDs would make it fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 100%, with both path_id and after_revision described in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, only the general idea of reading changes after a revision.

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 clear action ('Read') on a specific resource ('recorded changes to a Mastery Path') with a distinguishing scope ('after a revision'). This separates it from get_mastery_path and list_mastery_paths, which are the most likely sibling alternatives.

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 phrase 'after a revision' implies this is the tool for retrieving Mastery Path change history, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as get_mastery_path for the current state. Usage context is implied, not fully specified.

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