list_maintenance_events

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description needs only to add behavioral context. It does so by disclosing that recently-completed events (within the last 24h) are included alongside active ones, and by explaining account-scoping rules. It does not describe response format or ordering, but for a read-only list this is still a solid behavioral profile.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the core purpose and add only high-value details about scope and event recency. There is no filler, restatement of the tool name, or redundant information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides all necessary selection context: what counts as relevant, account-wide scoping, and the inclusion of recently-completed events. Nothing an agent needs to choose or invoke this tool 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 no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is no parameter-semantics gap. The baseline of 4 for a 0-parameter tool applies; the description adds no parameter-specific detail because none is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('maintenance events relevant to this account') and precisely defines the scope: anything affecting account infrastructure in a VPS/region plus account-wide events. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_activity_logs or get_vps.

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 provides clear context for when the tool should be used: retrieving maintenance events that affect account infrastructure or are scoped account-wide. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the scoping criteria make the intended usage evident.

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