list_project_events

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses read-only behavior, cursor management (expired cursor returns reset:true + earliest_cursor), composable filtering (source, event_type), and that the feed includes both platform events and app-emitted business facts.

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 paragraph that flows logically from purpose to usage details. While it is somewhat long, every sentence adds value and does not waste words. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool with multiple filtering options and behavioral nuances.

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 lack of an output schema, the description explains cursor behavior, read-only nature, and filtering composition well. However, it does not explicitly describe the response format (fields in each event) or the exact structure of next_actions, which would be helpful for full completeness.

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% with good parameter descriptions, but the description adds significant context: explaining cursor storage and passing, combining source and event_type filters, and the meaning of org_id for org-wide feed. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool provides a durable, cursored feed of project events (deploy activations, mailbox suspensions, etc.), with filtering by source and event_type. It distinguishes itself from sibling event tools by emphasizing the cursored and durable nature and the inclusion of app-emitted business facts.

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 description explicitly recommends using the tool after deploys and at the start of a session on an existing project, and notes it works on frozen projects. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for different scenarios.

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