List custom events

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read behavior. The description adds value by specifying the return of ids/slugs for referencing in other entities and the authentication requirement. No contradictions with annotations.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value (purpose, return value, prerequisite). No wasted words.

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 mentions return of ids/slugs but lacks details on output structure, pagination, or how limit/search parameters affect results. For a list tool with no output schema, more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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 low (33%), with only projectId having a description ('Defaults to the auto-detected project'). The tool description does not explain the limit or search parameters, relying on the schema which lacks detail. This forces the agent to infer meaning from parameter names alone.

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 custom events in a Specter project. It uses specific verbs and resource ('List custom events') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like specter_create_event and specter_send_event by focusing on querying existing 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?

The description explicitly mentions the prerequisite of a one-time browser sign-in (specter_login), which guides the agent on setup. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparisons to alternatives like specter_create_event.

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