list_events

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

The description suggests a read operation (list) but lacks details on side effects, authentication, or rate limits. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden, and it is minimal.

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 concise (two sentences plus docstring) and structured with Args/Returns sections. It is efficient but could be slightly more formal.

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 an output schema exists (from context signals), the description's note about return value is redundant. It adequately covers purpose and parameter but lacks context on event filtering or visibility semantics.

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?

The description explains the 'limit' parameter beyond the schema: 'Return only the most recent N events; 0 returns all events'. This fully compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage.

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 'List global events visible to the current user' with a specific verb and resource. It implies a distinction from project-specific events but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_last_events' or 'list_project_events'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'global events' hints at scope but does not direct to sibling tools for project-specific or more narrow event queries.

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