events_get_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'get all events' without discussing read-only behavior, pagination, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a full understanding.

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 very short and front-loaded, but it lacks structure and omits important details. It could be more efficient by including usage context without increasing length.

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 presence of many sibling tools and a complex nested parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use the options parameter, the scope of events (e.g., project-specific), or the format of the response, which has no output schema.

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 single parameter 'options' is described in the schema as 'Optional parameters for filtering and pagination' with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning, so baseline score is appropriate.

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 retrieves all events for a project, which is specific and distinguishes from siblings like events_get (single event). However, the scope (project) is not explicitly stated in the description, only implied by the tool name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like events_get_all_by_org or events_get. The description does not mention pagination or filtering, leaving the agent to infer usage implicitly.

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