List site events

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

Annotations already indicate read-only (readOnlyHint) and open-world (openWorldHint) behavior. The description adds that it returns counts and a sample of entries, defaults to 24 hours, and allows filtering by module, providing useful context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the main purpose, default behavior, and output type. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core functionality (event types, time window, output) but omits details about siteId (likely required) and pagination (page parameter). Without an output schema, the return structure of the sample is also not described, leaving gaps for a parameter-rich tool.

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 60% (hoursAgo, module, pageSize have descriptions; siteId and page do not). The description adds meaning for module (listing types) and time window, but fails to explain the siteId (likely required but not clarified) and page (pagination) parameters. This under-compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 it lists site events within a time window, specifies the event types (System/Device/Client), and explains what it returns (counts and a sample). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_logs and list_clients.

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 implies usage for retrieving event logs within a time window with optional filtering, but it does not explicitly say when to use this over sibling tools like list_logs (which might serve a different purpose). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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