context_pack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the return ordering ('most recently updated first'), the incremental-sync behavior of sinceVersion, and the cursor-based pagination with 'pass next'. It does not mention result caps or rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the return shape, then parameter usage in a compact semicolon-separated sequence. It is a single long sentence with no wasted filler, though the density borders on run-on.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the returned field shape, sort order, pagination protocol, and incremental-sync mechanism, which covers what an agent needs to call and interpret it. Missing only edge behavior such as empty-result or stale-cursor handling.

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 carries the full burden and mostly delivers: sinceVersion is explained as 'the version you cached', state as a filter with 'open'/'closed' examples, and limit/cursor as the pagination pair with 'pass next' describing how to advance. Only limit's exact semantics (max page size) are left implicit.

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 names the resource ('every Event') and its scope ('in brief', 'most recently updated first') plus the inline shape {id, title?, state, parents, progress?, updatedAt}, so an agent knows this is a bulk directory listing rather than a search or a single-record get. It does not name a sibling tool explicitly, but the scope is distinct enough from event_search and event_get_protocol to be usable.

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?

'From which you decide what to read' implies the intended workflow (list first, fetch details later) and sinceVersion is framed as the change-detection path. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-event_search guidance and no stated preconditions, so usage is implied rather than directed.

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