list_events

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a behavioral note about using the returned id rather than event_id, and states default ordering. It does not contradict the annotations and provides a small amount of extra behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundant or verbose text. The secondary sentence adds a crucial cross-tool usage note without breaking flow.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately covers what is needed: it lists events for an issue, mentions ordering, and hints at the shape of the returned id. It does not discuss pagination or error handling, but these are common and not necessary for such a simple 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 description coverage is only 25% (only issue_id has a description), and the description does not compensate. Limit, order, and cursor are left without explanation, and the issue_id description itself is confusing as it mixes issue and event ID terminology. The description adds little semantic value beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'event metadata', and the scope 'for an issue', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_event or list_issues. The phrase 'Use the returned id, not event_id, with get_event' further clarifies the purpose by linking to a subsequent operation.

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 gives explicit guidance on how to use the result with get_event, which is a useful usage note. It also specifies default ordering ('newest first'), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_issues or get_event_stacktrace, so it falls slightly short of a perfect score.

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