list_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions ordering ('newest first') and scoping ('limited to that project's bound resources'), but omits details like pagination beyond the limit parameter, idempotency, error handling (except schema-infused source rejection), or rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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, front-loading the purpose and use cases with no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clean.

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 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description effectively covers the tool's core functionality, usage scenarios, and project scoping. It is mostly complete for an agent to decide when and how to use it, though it could mention basic error behavior (e.g., rejection of unknown source ids) which is only in the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about using parameters to inspect signal or check source activity, and clarifies project_id scoping ('limited to that project's bound resources'). This adds modest value but does not exceed what the schema already provides.

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 the verb 'List' and resource 'raw context events', with examples like 'a push, a message, an issue update'. It also mentions sorting 'newest first' and project scoping, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_workspace_context' or 'list_insights', which could cause confusion for an agent.

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 explicitly says 'Use it to inspect the underlying signal a generation would draw on, or to check whether a source is producing data', providing clear use cases. It does not state when not to use or name alternatives, but the guidance is direct and actionable.

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