List undelivered events for an app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by defining 'undelivered' as 'failed or still retrying,' which is a meaningful behavior beyond the tool name. However, it does not disclose read-only safety, authentication requirements, pagination, or response format, leaving notable gaps.

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 entire description is one focused sentence with no filler. The core filtering condition is front-loaded and every word contributes to meaning, making it a model of concise tool documentation.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage; the description only covers the tool's purpose. Missing are when-to-use guidance, parameter semantics for limit and appSlug, and any return-value or error information. An agent would be under-informed for a confident invocation.

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 only 33% (only api_key has a description), and the description does not compensate. 'Given app' loosely references appSlug but provides no format or required context, and limit/api_key semantics are left entirely to the schema. Thus the description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond what little the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Show'), a clear resource ('events for the given app'), and a precise status condition ('not successfully reached any destination (failed or still retrying)'). This cleanly distinguishes the tool from siblings like anyhook_events, which would list all events regardless of delivery status.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as anyhook_events or anyhook_inbox. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools are mentioned; usage context is only implied by the name and the status filter.

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