list_dataset_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'Lists', and the lineage tracking context adds some clarity. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, response structure (though an output schema exists), or any limitations beyond the v1 restriction. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's role. It includes a purposeful API version note. It is concise with no wasted words, though it could have expanded on parameters without becoming bloated.

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 tool has four optional parameters and an output schema, but the description leaves gaps. It does not explain how filtering works via 'dataset_uri' or 'source_dag_id', nor does it clarify the difference from the sibling 'get_dataset_events'. Given the moderate complexity and the existence of a seemingly similar tool, the description is incomplete.

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 0% and the description does not mention any parameters. Parameter names like 'limit' and 'offset' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value in explaining format, meaning, or relationships among parameters. It fails to compensate for the lack of 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 dataset events for data lineage tracking, which is a specific verb and resource. It also notes the v1 API limitation, providing some distinction from v2. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_dataset_events', which could cause confusion.

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 gives a clear use case (data lineage tracking) and explicitly warns that v2 uses Assets, indicating a when-not-to-use condition. It lacks reference to the sibling 'get_dataset_events', but the API version guidance is useful.

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