List event names

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so no destructive behavior needs disclosure. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that results include event names and their last-seen timestamps, but it does not describe pagination behavior, ordering, or data freshness. This is adequate but not rich.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a relevant usage note. Every sentence earns its place, and no redundant content is present.

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?

This is a simple, read-only list operation with no required parameters and a fully documented schema. The description supplies the essential return concept (event names plus last-seen) and a usage context. It could be slightly more complete by noting response ordering or pagination defaults, but those are inferable from the schema.

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%, with each of the four parameters (limit, offset, search, project_id) carrying a description and default values. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (event names in a project) and the specific aspect it covers (when each was last seen), with a clear title 'List event names'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like posthog_property_definitions, but the resource is specific enough to avoid confusion.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use it instead of guessing event names in HogQL.' This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate relative to a query alternative, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases for sibling tools.

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