list_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never confirms this is a safe read, says nothing about ordering, result size, pagination, or whether cancelled past events are included — all material for a list operation an agent will chain into other event tools.

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 a single short sentence with no waste, so it is not verbose. However, the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency — a noun fragment is not a usable instruction on its own.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description needed to cover at least the return shape and scope semantics (e.g. time bounds, inclusion of cancelled events). It provides only a partial scope hint, leaving the agent to guess what comes back.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. No parameter-meaning gaps exist to compensate for.

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 fragment names the resource (events) and adds a real scoping qualifier — 'created by this mailbox' — which distinguishes it from events the mailbox was merely invited to. But it contains no verb, so the listing action is only inferable from the tool name, and it does nothing to set itself apart from sibling event tools.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as list_messages or get_mailbox_info. The mailbox-scoping phrase implies a filter but never states the condition under which an agent should choose this tool.

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