list_events

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 states the tool returns 'basic event info' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., fields, format), whether it's paginated, rate-limited, or requires specific permissions. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in output.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by separating purpose from output details, and it lacks critical behavioral information, making it slightly under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions returning 'basic event info' but doesn't explain what that entails, leaving the agent uncertain about the response format. For a listing tool with potential output complexity, this gap reduces usability.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('issue_id' and 'limit'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format details or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('events (individual error occurrences) for a specific issue'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_event' or 'list_issues', which would require more precise scope definition.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_event' (for a single event) or 'list_issues' (for broader listing). It mentions the context ('for a specific issue') but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage ambiguous.

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