listEvents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds 'paginated' and the event-type categories, which are useful behavioral context, and 'list' implies a read-only operation. However, it doesn't disclose ordering, time window, result shape, or the fact that siteId is not required in the schema, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

One front-loaded sentence contains all the essential info: operation, resource, pagination, and event categories. No fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name or schema defaults.

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 simple paginated list tool, the combination of description and input schema covers the basic call pattern (page, pageSize, and site context). However, missing output schema and no return-format description, plus no guidance on siteId optionality or time range, leave gaps that a fully complete definition would close.

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 67%: page and pageSize already have descriptions, so the description doesn't need to restate them. The phrase 'for a site' gives semantic context to the otherwise undocumented siteId parameter, but it doesn't clarify that siteId is optional. Net value is moderate but sufficient.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('events for a site') and gives concrete event categories (alerts, warnings, system events), making its purpose evident. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like listLogs or getThreatList, so it isn't maximally disambiguating.

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 conditions, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned. The sibling list contains many list/get tools, and there is no guidance on when to choose this over listLogs or getThreatList. The only implied use is 'when you want events for a site'.

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