List events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description doesn't need to repeat it. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the project-wide scope and the shape of returned data ("what fired, for whom, and when"). It stops short of pagination or result-limit behavior, but it does more than restate structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with bolded section labels that make it scannable, and every sentence carries routing or scope information. The only mild redundancy is "Returns: Event records" versus the earlier "what fired, for whom, and when," but it is small and the structure is otherwise tight.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, and the general content of results. Nothing an agent must supply is missing. Minor gap: no mention of result volume, pagination, or time-window defaults, which would matter for a project-wide listing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing to document; the description correctly spends no words on parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List event records") plus the scope ("across the project") and what the records contain ("what fired, for whom, and when"). It explicitly names the two sibling tools it is not (plunk_list_event_names, plunk_get_contact_events), so an agent can distinguish it without opening sibling schemas.

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 "Not for" section routes away from the two nearest alternatives by name, and the "Use when" section states the positive selection condition ("what has actually been tracked, rather than what could be"). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are explicit.

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