list_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the user-scoping boundary and a strict date-format restriction (YYYY-MM-DD only), which is genuinely useful input-constraint context. However, the date note largely duplicates the schema's existing parameter descriptions, and the description omits pagination defaults, potential result size, or auth requirements, leaving behavioral disclosure partial.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded; no filler or wasted words. The second sentence's date-format note is somewhat redundant with the schema but sharpens the constraint with 'only', so it earns its place. Appropriately sized for an 8-parameter list tool.

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 simple filtered-list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is functional but thin. It establishes what is listed and for whom, but misses sibling differentiation (get_project_events), pagination behavior, and any hint about the returned shape. With 8 parameters and a close sibling, an agent would benefit from more routing and behavioral context.

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 baseline of 3 applies — all 8 parameters are already documented in the schema, including the off-by-one date semantics for before/after. The description adds only the sharper 'only' restriction on date format, a marginal strengthening of what the schema already states. This is adequate but adds little meaning beyond the structured data.

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 (List), resource (events), and scope (for the currently authenticated user), making the tool's function immediately understandable. This implicitly separates it from the sibling get_project_events, which is project-scoped rather than user-scoped. However, it omits the filtering capabilities visible in the schema and doesn't explicitly name the sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains get_project_events, a close relative for project-scoped event queries, yet the description never acknowledges it or states conditions that would route an agent to one over the other. The 'currently authenticated user' phrase gives implied context but no explicit when/when-not instruction.

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