list_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the 50-event limit, the filter behavior, and that involved_object is appended to field_selector. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe ordering (beyond 'most recent') or error behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and the parameter definitions in a clean list. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, though the Args block could arguably be condensed into a more structured format.

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's simplicity, an output schema exists (so return values don't need explanation), and the description covers the main behaviors: limit, filters, namespace default, and cluster targeting. It lacks details on pagination (not needed for a 50-item limit) and permission requirements, but these are minor in this context.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in prose: namespace (empty = all), field_selector with an example, involved_object (appended to field_selector), and cluster (empty = default). This adds real semantic value beyond the bare schema titles, though it could also detail the exact syntax of field_selector more thoroughly.

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 the most recent 50 events, a specific verb-resource pair with a concrete limit. It distinguishes itself from sibling list_* tools by focusing on events and describes the available filters, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need Kubernetes events, with optional filters for namespace, field_selector, and involved_object. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the domain is unique enough that no sibling directly competes, so the guidance is adequate.

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