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. It correctly implies a read-only operation with 'Query' and mentions 'recent events' (suggesting ordering). However, it doesn't disclose any limitations such as default limit, maximum limit, pagination behavior, or how properties filters are formatted beyond what the schema already states. It adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Query events from PostHog'). Every phrase earns its place, listing filters and return behavior without waste. Excellent for a tool of this complexity.

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 simple list/query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the primary purpose, filter options, and return type ('recent events'). It doesn't explain the exact response structure or pagination, but the description is sufficient given the tool's simplicity and the schema's parameter documentation. A slightly more explicit note about ordering or pagination would make it perfect.

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 each parameter already having a clear description. The description summarizes the filter categories (event name, person, date range, properties), which adds marginal value by grouping them, but it doesn't introduce new meaning beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Query events from PostHog' with a specific verb and resource. It further lists filter dimensions (event name, person, date range, properties) and specifies the output ('Returns recent events'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_persons or list_dashboards, which target different resources.

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 context is clear: this tool is for querying event data from PostHog. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, the sibling tools are all for different resources (persons, dashboards, feature flags, etc.), so there's no ambiguity about when to use this tool. The absence of an alternative event tool makes the usage obvious.

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