System Events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the listed examples, such as pagination via skip and limit defaults, but does not disclose ordering, event type value formats, or any special behavior. It does not contradict annotations.

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 exceptionally concise: one purpose sentence followed by a clean argument list. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 the presence of an output schema and strong safety annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and all parameter semantics. It lacks some behavioral details like result ordering or event_type accepted values, but for a simple list operation the provided context is nearly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: tenant (default from env), event_type (filter), limit (max results, default 50), and skip (pagination offset). This adds concrete meaning that the bare schema properties lack.

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 opens with 'List system events' and immediately specifies the scope with examples ('config updates, reconfigurations, pipeline changes'). This provides a specific verb, resource, and meaningful content that distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_builds or list_jobs.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or point to sibling tools. The description implies usage for listing system events, but lacks contextual direction or comparisons.

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