list_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the reverse-chronological ordering, which the schema does not. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior, auth requirements, rate limits, or the default 7-day window beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding, and the core behavior (listing + ordering) is front-loaded ahead of the filter hint. Nothing redundant or wasteful.

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 a five-parameter paginated list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it omits pagination workflow, default time-window behavior, and how results relate to get_event. The schema covers parameters, so the gap is mostly about call/return workflow context.

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 five parameters are already documented with examples, ranges, and defaults. The description restates the name filter's purpose but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('List recent events') plus the ordering semantics ('reverse chronological order'), which distinguishes it from get_event and get_event_runs. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the listing-vs-retrieval distinction is clear.

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?

'Use name filter to find specific event types' gives one usage hint, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_event or list_functions, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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