list_project_events

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: read-only, durable cursor, expired cursor returns reset:true + earliest_cursor, works on frozen projects. It also explains the nature of the feed (app vs platform events) and next_actions.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured with front-loaded main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though some details could be condensed. It effectively uses examples and conditional logic.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return structure (cursor, events with next_actions), pagination, filtering, and use cases. No gaps for effective usage.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds significant meaning: explains the enum values for source, how event_type composes with source, that cursor is opaque and how to handle it, and the relationship between project_id and org_id. This goes well beyond schema descriptions.

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 it is a 'durable, cursored feed' of project events, including specific event types like deploy activations, mailbox suspensions, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing the cursored feed and filtering capabilities.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Reach for this after any deploy' and 'at the start of a session on an existing project.' Also explains cursor handling and that it is read-only, but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it compared to other event-related tools.

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