apps_app_events_get_to_many_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no pagination behavior (despite limit/limit_localizations params), no auth or scope requirements, and no indication that this is a read-only listing operation. The path fragment is the only hint that it is a GET.

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?

It is short, but every character is redundant duplication — the same path is printed twice with no added information. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not efficient writing.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the resource, the filtering/enumeration capabilities, and linkage to the app resource. Instead it provides only the endpoint string, leaving the agent with nothing beyond what the name and schema already convey.

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 all eight parameters (id, limit, include, filter_id, filter_eventState, fields_appEvents, limit_localizations, fields_appEventLocalizations) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 is only the raw HTTP path 'GET /v1/apps/{id}/appEvents' duplicated in parentheses. It happens to reveal the resource (appEvents scoped to an app) but states no plain-language verb or outcome, and does nothing to differentiate it from sibling list tools like app_events_localizations_get_to_many_related. It is effectively a restatement of the tool name rather than an explanation of purpose.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever about when to call this endpoint, what it returns, or which sibling to use for adjacent needs (e.g. app_events_get_instance for a single event, or app_events_localizations_get_to_many_related). An agent must infer everything from the path alone.

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