List Events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by stating it includes unpublished events and returns full event records as JSON, which are not visible in annotations or schema.

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-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. It avoids repetition or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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, parameterless list tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers the scope (all events, including unpublished) and the return type (full JSON records). Since there is no output schema, mentioning the output format is essential and provided.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description compensates by specifying the output format (full JSON records), which is the primary information needed for a parameterless list operation. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 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 'List all events' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings like 'get_event' by emphasizing 'all' and 'including unpublished ones', making its scope explicit.

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 (to retrieve all events, including unpublished). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the phrase 'all events' implies a comprehensive listing versus the single-event 'get_event' sibling, offering sufficient guidance without exclusions.

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