hcp_list_events

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), the description discloses material runtime behavior: automatic pagination, behavior change when an explicit page is provided, the HCP-enforced maximum page size, and the expected ISO 8601 format for last_polled_at. These details are not present in the annotations or schema and materially change how an agent should call the tool.

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?

Three short sentences, with the core purpose first and the most actionable constraints after. Every sentence contributes operational value: what the tool does, how pagination behaves, and which parameter enables incremental polling. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple, has an output schema, and strong annotations. The description covers the key operational details an agent needs: pagination defaults, hard API limit, and the incremental polling entry point. It is slightly incomplete in not stating what happens when last_polled_at is omitted, but given the schema marks it optional and output schema exists, this is a minor gap.

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 for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It explains last_polled_at with format and purpose, clarifies page via auto-pagination behavior, and constrains page_size with the HCP limit. It does not fully document every nuance, such as default values, but it adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles and defaults.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List events with incremental polling.' The event resource is distinct from sibling list tools, though it does not explicitly compare itself to any sibling such as hcp_list_employees or hcp_list_customers. The core purpose is clear but sibling differentiation relies on resource naming rather than explicit contrast.

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 clear usage context: incremental consumption via last_polled_at, auto-pagination unless an explicit page is set, and an HCP page_size ceiling of 50. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use this tool or name alternatives, but the usage conditions are specific enough to guide correct invocation.

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