ls_sink_events_list

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open world hints. The description adds that events are optionally filtered, checkpointing via 'since', and authentication requirements, adding useful context without contradiction.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action and filter option, and includes necessary authentication context without any waste.

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?

Given the low complexity (3 simple parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and key parameter role. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but these are not critical for a basic list tool.

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 detailed descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by summarizing the checkpointing behavior for 'since', going beyond the schema's details.

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 clearly states 'List webhook events the sink has received, optionally filtered,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'ls_sink_event_mark_processed' and 'ls_sink_stats' by focusing on listing received events.

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 advises using 'since' for checkpointing and requires the sink URL and admin token, providing clear context for when to use. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives among siblings, but the guidance is sufficient.

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