List event types

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the scope 'all available', implying no filtering, but does not disclose return shape, localization behavior, or whether event types are translated based on language_code. No contradiction with annotations.

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 one concise sentence with no filler or redundant information.

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 is simple, but the description omits what event types are used for, the expected output format, and how language_code affects results. Since there is no output schema, an agent must infer these details from the title and sibling tools; this is minimally adequate but not fully self-contained.

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% for the single parameter language_code, which includes examples 'en, es, pt, ru'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 'Get all available event types' clearly identifies a read-only enumeration of event type definitions. It distinguishes from siblings like kommo_events_list (which lists events) by naming 'event types' as the resource, though it does not explicitly explain the relationship to the events domain.

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 kommo_events_list or kommo_events_get. It does not mention that this tool provides a controlled vocabulary for event filters or any context for when the language_code parameter should be used.

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