apps_event_authorizations_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get a list') but provides no details on pagination, error conditions, rate limits, or what constitutes an 'event context.' The minimal disclosure does not sufficiently inform the agent of behavioral traits.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and depth. It is not front-loaded with key details, and the brevity comes at the expense of completeness. A balance between conciseness and informativeness is missing.

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 that there are 3 parameters (one required), no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of event_context, how pagination works (cursor, limit), or what the output contains. The tool is not adequately described for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, meaning the input schema has no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add any meaning for the three parameters (event_context, cursor, limit). It only mentions 'event context' in passing without clarifying its format or purpose, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'Get a list of authorizations for the given event context,' which clearly identifies the action (get list) and resource (authorizations) with a specific scope (event context). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like apps_manifest_validate or apps_manifest_export, but the resource is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The description merely states what it does without indicating when it is appropriate or what scenarios to avoid.

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