list_simulation_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content detail by noting that include_decisions surfaces Packet Tracer's per-layer explanation, the same text as the PDU Details window. It says nothing about ordering beyond the schema's hint, pagination limits, or behavior on an empty/raw simulation.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The core read purpose and its field set are front-loaded, and the optional decision-text behavior is deferred to the second sentence, which is the right ordering.

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, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the description adequately covers what the list contains. The remaining gap is routing: with siblings like watch_events and simulation_step present, the description gives no guidance on which one to pick, so the definition is adequate but not complete for selection.

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 all four parameters (limit, device, protocols, include_decisions) are already fully documented with defaults and semantics. The description only restates include_decisions at a higher level, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (Read) and resource (simulation event list) and enumerates the fields returned: location, timing, protocol, accepted/dropped. That clearly distinguishes it from state-changing siblings. However, it never contrasts itself with close siblings like watch_events or simulation_step, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus watch_events, simulation_step, or simulation_mode. The use case (inspecting a completed simulation log) is only implied by the name and field list. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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