events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. 'View' clearly indicates a read operation, and the description goes further by explaining what the public record contains, how the feed splits, and what categories include. It could add more about required credentials or output shape, but it is not misleading.

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 dense and front-loaded: it defines the tool in the first sentence, then gives filter and category behavior. The long list of event types is useful rather than wasteful, though a bit heavy relative to the overall description 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?

For a listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the main selection behavior and category semantics well. Missing details like pagination, ordering, or exact returned fields would strengthen it, but they are not necessary to correctly call and use the tool in most cases.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics by enumerating the event kinds inside 'interaction' and 'realm', and by stating that omitting category returns both. This goes beyond the schema's short field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb (View) and resource (game events), and immediately identifies the events feed as the public record of everything that happens. The category breakdown makes it clear this is distinct from notifications or statements by describing the Court vs. household content.

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?

Gives explicit guidance for filter values ('all' vs 'mine'), category values ('interaction' vs 'realm'), and tells the agent to omit category to receive both. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the selection rules are otherwise clear and operational.

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