emu_list_curri_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool requires a sessionId, whether results are paginated, whether it returns raw events or aggregated projections, or any side effects (though 'List' implies read-only, it is not explicitly stated). This is a significant gap for an apparently read-oriented 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?

The description is extremely short (one phrase), which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary information. It is not front-loaded with the most critical scoping details—indeed, there are none. The brevity is appropriate for a simple tool but insufficient here.

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 has optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and only a sparse description, it is incomplete for an agent to call correctly. The agent does not know the expected input constraints, output format, or how to interpret results, making this definition inadequate for non-trivial use.

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%, meaning the description must explain the parameters, but it does not mention 'limit' or 'sessionId' at all. The schema gives no descriptions or types beyond bare integer/string. Thus the agent has no idea what these parameters do or whether they require values, forcing guesswork.

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 ('List') and resource ('canonical CURRI projections'), indicating a read operation for CURRI events. However, 'CURRI projections' is vague—it does not clarify what these projections represent (e.g., event summaries, computed end-states) or how they differ from sibling tools like emu_evaluate_curri or emu_get_curri_history, so the purpose is only partially clear.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as emu_get_curri_history or emu_evaluate_curri. An agent is left to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient given the large sibling set.

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