mailkite_list_event_names

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses that results include both posted events (with counts and last-arrival time) and events referenced by sequences but never sent, and it explains why that matters. It also calls out the API key requirement. No contradiction with annotations.

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 longer than average, but every clause earns its place: purpose, result composition, counts/timestamps, the trap rationale, and auth requirement. The structure flows logically from what it returns to why it returns it.

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, read-only list tool with no output schema, it fully covers what is returned, the two categories of event names, the rationale for including unsent ones, and the authentication prerequisite. Nothing essential is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add; the baseline of 4 for no parameters is appropriate. The description's information about output categories is not parameter semantics but is still useful context.

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 exact resource ('distinct event names this account works with') and the intended consumer ('so an editor can offer them'). It also distinguishes itself from a more naive events-only listing by explicitly covering sequence-referenced events, making it distinct from siblings like mailkite_list_events and mailkite_list_triggers.

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 provides a concrete usage scenario (editor needs to offer valid event names) and includes a warning that a sent-only list would be a trap, implying when this broader listing is the right choice. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the context and warning make the appropriate use clear.

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