list_event_log

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's read-only behavior is consistent. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying 'recent' (indicating a time-bound result set) and 'processing status' (clarifying the kind of information returned). It does not contradict annotations and provides behavioral detail not captured by the metadata.

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 a single, concise sentence of 13 words. It is front-loaded with the primary verb 'List' and the resource, immediately conveying the tool's purpose. No word is wasted, and it avoids repetition of schema or annotation information.

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 read-only list tool with a well-described schema and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the subject (event log entries) and the key attribute (processing status), and the 'recent' qualifier sets expectations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the related list_event_registry tool, which might be useful for an agent to disambiguate. Overall, it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (limit, state, event_name). The description itself does not add any parameter-specific semantics, but that is acceptable given the high schema coverage. It does not compensate for anything missing, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool lists recent event log entries, specifying both the resource (event log entries) and the focus on fired events and their processing status. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_active_events or list_event_registry, which serve related but distinct purposes.

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 implies usage for viewing recent event logs and their processing status, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. Sibling tools such as list_event_registry or get_event_registry_entry are not referenced, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing among them.

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