list-event-types

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the scope is clearly stated, but the description does not mention pagination, ordering, return shape, or any API-specific behavior. For a simple zero-parameter list tool this is minimally sufficient.

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 efficient sentence. It front-loads the verb and resource, contains no filler, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope.

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 tool with no output schema, this description gives the essential context: it lists all event types for the authenticated user. It could add a note about the return format or pagination, but the absence of inputs makes the description largely sufficient for invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers this aspect. The description adds the useful contextual note that the return set is scoped to the authenticated user rather than being passed as a parameter.

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 a clear verb ('List') and resource ('all event types') scoped to the authenticated user. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from create/get/update/delete variants, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 phrase 'for the authenticated user' implies the intended context and that the call uses the caller's identity. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get-event-type or other list tools, and it provides no exclusions or alternative routes.

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