event_list

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states 'List events for a project' without revealing any behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, filtering, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the function. While it lacks detail, it is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, though more content could be added without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool has a single parameter and an output schema exists (not shown), but the description does not mention the output format, event properties, or any contextual details. Without annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's role and behavior in the broader system.

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% (the only parameter project_id is described in the schema), but the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that. The schema itself provides a minimal description ('The ID of the project.'), and the tool description does not elaborate on what project_id means or how to use it, offering no extra semantic value.

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 'List events for a project' clearly states the verb and resource, making the tool's purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from other list tools (e.g., key_list, inventory_list), which also follow a similar pattern but for different entities. The specificity of 'for a project' adds some context, but lacks details on what an event is.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios. This leaves the agent without guidance on context-appropriate invocation.

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