List agent events

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description adds real behavioral facts: ordering is oldest-first, the default page size is 50 with a max of 200, and test events are silently skipped by default. The silent filtering of test events is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior worth disclosing; only the return shape is left implicit.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the core ordering and pagination model front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 six-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers pagination, defaults, limits, filtering, and test-event exclusion, and even names the next_since cursor the agent needs for the next call. The remaining gap is the undefined semantics of from/to.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains since, limit (default 50, max 200), include_test, and that kind/from/to are filters, but it never says what the string parameters from and to actually mean (time range? sequence bounds?), leaving two parameters semantically opaque.

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 names the resource (events), the ordering (oldest first), and the cursor mechanism (after a sequence number), so an agent knows this is a paginated event feed read. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like report_event, but the verb+resource is specific enough to act on.

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?

It gives concrete operating instructions: page by setting since to the next_since value, filter with kind/from/to, and test events are excluded unless include_test is true. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the usage context is clear.

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