vibo_list_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the scope (events user participates in) and default filter (upcoming). However, it omits details like pagination behavior (skip/limit) or any effect on server state, which are not critical given the read-only nature but would enhance transparency.

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 covering purpose, default behavior, and optional filtering. Every word is functional, with no redundancy or extraneous detail. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains return context (list of events) and filtering capabilities. It does not explicitly mention pagination, but the skip/limit parameters in the schema imply that. For a read-only list tool with four well-documented parameters, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so the description does not need to explain each parameter. It mentions 'q' and 'past' in context but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for skip/limit. A score of 3 is the baseline when schema is complete and description offers no extra insight.

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 the tool lists events the user is part of (as host or guest), differentiating it from siblings like vibo_get_event (single event) and vibo_list_event_users (users of an event). The verb 'list' and resource 'events' are specific and unambiguous.

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 context on default behavior (upcoming) and how to get past events via 'past:true'. It also mentions optional search query filtering. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives like vibo_get_event when details are needed, which would strengthen guidance.

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