list_events

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety characteristics are covered. The description adds the scope of events (Semaphore and user's projects) and mentions the underlying GET /events endpoint, but does not describe pagination, return format, or authentication requirements.

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 two short sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded. The second sentence ('GET /events.') is somewhat redundant with the verb 'Get' and adds little beyond the endpoint, but does not detract significantly.

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, read-only list tool with rich annotations, the description covers what the tool returns at a high level. However, it omits pagination or ordering behavior and does not help distinguish this tool from closely related siblings, leaving a gap in selection guidance.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and requires no parameter documentation. The baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and the description does not introduce confusing parameter behavior.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Events') with scope ('related to Semaphore and projects you are part of'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_project_events or list_recent_events, leaving ambiguity about which event-listing tool to use.

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 such as list_project_events, list_recent_events, or list_recent_project_events. The scope hint ('projects you are part of') implies usage but does not state exclusions or selection criteria.

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