list_recent_events

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world), so the description's job is to add operational context — and it does, disclosing the hard 200-event ceiling and the visibility scope. It does not say whether results are newest-first or whether the 200 cap is a truncation with no pagination path, which would have completed the picture.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and result cap. The endpoint reference is the only marginally expendable element and it is a compact trailing clause.

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, annotation-covered list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what is returned, how many, and from which scope. Ordering and truncation behavior are the only meaningful gaps left for an agent deciding whether this view is sufficient.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The mention of the underlying 'GET /events/last' endpoint reinforces that no filters are accepted.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Get') with a precise resource ('last 200 Events') and scope ('related to Semaphore and projects you are part of'), which implicitly separates it from project-scoped siblings like list_project_events and list_recent_project_events. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 phrase 'projects you are part of' implies this is the cross-project, unfiltered recent-activity view, and the 'last 200' cap hints at a quick-glance use case. However, it never states when to prefer list_events or list_project_events instead, leaving the boundary to inference.

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