list_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context not in structured data: the event families that exist (ERR/MODE/EV/MSG) and that time values are seconds. It says nothing about ordering or result volume, so it stops short of a 4.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core resource is front-loaded. The telegraphic style ('times are seconds') is efficient, though the terseness slightly reduces readability.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but with 0% parameter coverage and no when-to-use guidance, the definition is only minimally complete for a log-querying tool. The 'path' argument is never described, leaving one required parameter's meaning entirely to the caller.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it partially does: it explains that 'kinds' filters event families and enumerates the valid families, and that time parameters (start_s/end_s) are in seconds. Only 'path' is left unexplained.

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 names a concrete resource and scope: a decoded ERR/MODE/EV/MSG event timeline. An agent can tell it returns parsed log events rather than raw logs or a summary, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the nearby incident_timeline sibling.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus list_checks, incident_timeline, or log_summary, and no prerequisite or context guidance. The agent must infer usage purely from the resource noun.

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