list_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait (sort order) and the namespace scope. However, it does not mention other potentially relevant behavior such as whether system events are included, pagination, or the read-only nature beyond what 'List' implies. The sorting detail adds some value, but the description is not rich.

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 that directly states the action, scope, and sorting behavior. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded. It earns a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

The tool is a simple listing operation, and an output schema exists to document return values. The description adequately covers the core purpose and sorting. However, it leaves the cluster_alias parameter unexplained, which is a gap given the low schema coverage. For its simplicity, this is nearly complete but not fully so.

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 must compensate. It does not explain the cluster_alias parameter at all and only implies the namespace parameter through 'in a namespace'. The schema itself provides default values and types, but the description adds insufficient meaning for the parameters, especially cluster_alias which is non-obvious.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('events') with a clear scope ('in a namespace') and a distinguishing behavioral detail (sorted by last timestamp descending). It clearly differentiates from sibling list tools like list_pods or list_services, and the namespace scoping aligns with the namespace parameter.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for listing events within a namespace, which provides context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as the more specific get_pod_events. This is a clear context without exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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