List events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds scope ('against its own resources'), but it does not disclose behavior such as event ordering, pagination, retention, namespace filtering, or output shape.

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, concise sentence that states the action, object, and scope without wasteful filler. The key qualifier ('against its own resources') is included up front and earns its place.

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 list tool, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource type and its scope. However, because there is no output schema, the description could usefully note what an event entry looks like or how events are returned, though this is a minor gap for such a simple operation.

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 zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema is self-sufficient. The description adds no parameter details, but none are required; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 ('Kubernetes events Longhorn has recorded against its own resources'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling list tools that target specific resource types. The scope is explicit and immediately understandable.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or sibling comparisons are mentioned. While the description implies it is for inspecting Longhorn-related events, an agent gets no explicit context about troubleshooting or when another list tool would be more appropriate.

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