List Events

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, and the description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying the returned event fields and the exact semantics of event_name filtering. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 three focused sentences with no filler: purpose and capabilities, return content, and an important filtering nuance. Every sentence earns its place and the key concept of raw events is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only list tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it states the operation, the granularity of results, key returned fields, and the important event_name filtering behavior. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by the listed return fields, and the schema documents all parameters thoroughly.

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% and each parameter already has a meaningful description, so the tool description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description only adds general filtering/pagination context and the event_name-vs-sessions distinction, which is also present in the eventName parameter description.

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 identifies a specific verb ('List'), resource ('raw events'), and scope ('for a site') while also noting filtering and pagination. The emphasis on individual event records rather than sessions helps distinguish it from sibling tools like rybbit_list_sessions and aggregation tools like rybbit_get_event_names.

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 gives a clear use context: retrieving raw, filtered event records for a site. It also clarifies that event_name filtering yields matching events rather than entire sessions, which implicitly guides the agent away from session-level tools, though no explicit alternative tools are named.

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