get_project_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It signals a read-only listing operation and adds the 'visible' scoping concept, but it does not define what visibility means, what permissions are required, or how pagination interacts with 'all visible events.'

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and scope, then adds a useful formatting note. Every word 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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is somewhat thin. The schema covers the parameters well, but the description leaves the return shape, definition of 'visible,' and relationship to list_events unexplained. It is functional but not fully complete.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents every parameter, including the YYYY-MM-DD format and the off-by-one date examples. The description's date-format note adds no new information beyond the schema, meriting the baseline score.

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 states a clear verb ('List'), a specific resource ('events'), and a scope ('for a specified project'). It is understandable on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool list_events, which likely serves a broader events-listing purpose.

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 given about when to use this tool versus list_events or other event-related tools. The phrase 'for a specified project' implies the project-scoped use case, but it never states an exclusion such as 'for cross-project events, use list_events instead.'

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