list_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'List recent SpinupWP events' but doesn't specify what 'recent' means (e.g., time range, pagination), whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), or any rate limits or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves data retrieval, making it inadequate for full transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List recent SpinupWP events') and includes essential details (optional filtering) without any redundant or verbose language. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with optional filters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, pagination, or error handling. This is adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps that could hinder effective tool use.

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%, with both parameters (server_id and site_id) clearly documented in the schema as filters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning these parameters as optional filters but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already states (e.g., how filtering works, default behavior without filters). This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema handles 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('SpinupWP events'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies the scope ('recent') and mentions optional filtering parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_event' or 'list_servers/list_sites', which would require more specific distinction to earn a 5.

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 context by mentioning optional filtering by server_id or site_id, suggesting this tool is for retrieving events with potential scoping. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_event' (for a single event) or when not to use it (e.g., for non-event data). No misleading information is present, but the guidance is limited to implied filtering scenarios.

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