Events: List_access_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered structurally. The description adds the event content types (door opens, denied attempts), which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or time-range defaults – relevant for a potentially large event log.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical examples earn their place by defining the resource's contents.

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 with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient – annotations handle safety and the schema handles inputs. The one real gap is disambiguation from List_audit_events and the Count_* siblings, which the description never addresses.

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 already explains the filter syntax, the offset-as-occurred-value semantics, and the pageSize bounds. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (access events) and clarifies the resource with concrete examples (door opens, denied attempts). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling Events: List_audit_events, so an agent cannot tell which event stream to choose from the description alone.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite three closely related siblings (List_audit_events, Count_access_events, Count_audit_events). The agent is left to infer the access-vs-audit boundary on its own.

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