lc_list_sensor_events

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'bounded page' implying pagination, but does not explain default sorting (e.g., chronological), what happens when no events match, whether the result set is limited, or any side effects. The schema's cursor and is_forward parameters hint at pagination direction, but the description does not clarify.

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 with no waste. It is appropriately concise for a simple function, but could have included more detail without becoming verbose. The structure is good, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing critical information.

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 8 parameters (4 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain pagination parameters (limit, cursor), filtering (event_type), time range (start, end), or direction (is_forward). An agent cannot reliably use this tool without guessing parameter formats and behavior.

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 adds no meaning to any of the 8 parameters. It does not explain that oid is likely the organization ID, sensor_id identifies the sensor, start and end are timestamps (epoch seconds), limit controls page size, cursor enables pagination, event_type filters, or is_forward controls time order. The agent must infer all parameter semantics from the schema alone, which is insufficient.

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 'List one bounded page of historical events for one sensor' which specifies the verb (list), resource (historical events), and scope (one sensor, one page). It is specific enough to distinguish from tools like lc_get_event (single event) or lc_get_sensor_event_overview (overview), though it does not explicitly name siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lc_get_event, lc_get_sensor_event_overview, or lc_list_child_events. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use hints, and no mention of prerequisites like authentication or sensor existence.

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