List events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds context about the two possible scopes (current user or project) and provides examples of event types, which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens with all_pages/limit, even though these are present in the schema. Given annotations, the added transparency is moderate.

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, compact sentence with a parenthetical listing event types. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose and scope. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though slightly under-specified. This is efficient without being wasteful, similar to the 'update_drive' example which scored 4.

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 tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but not rich. It explains the overall purpose and scope but does not mention return value format, pagination, or the meaning of all_pages/limit. Since the schema fills many gaps, the description meets the minimum bar but could be more complete for a complex list operation.

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 90%, so most parameters already have descriptions. The description's mention of 'pushes, comments, merges' overlaps with the schema's examples for 'action' and 'target_type', adding little new meaning. It does imply that project_id distinguishes project events from user events, but the schema already says that. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 says 'Activity stream for the current user or a project', which clearly identifies the tool as listing events and distinguishes its scope (user vs project). It also provides examples of event types ('pushes, comments, merges'), making the purpose clear. However, it lacks a strong verb+resource phrasing, relying on the name 'list_events' to convey the action.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_todos or list_issues. It only implies usage by naming the resource ('Activity stream'), but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or mention sibling tools. For example, it could clarify that this is the tool for event streams, not for directly listing issues or merge requests.

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