list_recent_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral traits of ordering (newest first) and scope (driving events including specific categories). It doesn't mention pagination or default limit behavior, but that is partially covered by the schema default. Given the annotations provide a strong baseline, the description adds useful context beyond them.

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?

A single sentence that is concise and front-loads the core purpose (recent driving events) before enumerating event types and ordering. No filler words.

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?

The tool has an output schema (though not shown here, it's indicated as present), and the description doesn't need to explain return format. Combined with annotations and schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to know what it returns and when to call it. Minor gap: no mention of how events are categorized or whether filters exist beyond limit, but that may be beyond scope for a simple list tool.

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% (the only parameter `limit` has a description). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but the parameter itself is simple and well-covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameter effectively.

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 the resource (recent driving events) and the specific event types (speeding, hard braking, collisions, refuels), and notes the ordering (newest first). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_raw_telemetry or get_trip_summary, which are either more raw or aggregate differently. The verb 'list' is explicit.

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 implies a general-purpose listing use case but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives. Sibling tools like check_speeding or get_trip_summary might cover similar ground, but no exclusion or preference guidance is given. The ordering and event type filtering are clear, but no scenarios are provided.

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