datadog_events_list

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses pagination behavior (limit=0 auto-paginates up to 10000), time format support (shorthand, RFC 3339, epoch), and output format (YAML). There is a minor inconsistency: schema default for limit is null but description says 'or omitted' auto-paginates, which could confuse but is still informative.

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?

Four sentences, each purposeful: main action, pagination rule, time formats, mirror command, output format. No redundancy, well front-loaded.

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 6-param tool with no output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects (pagination, time ranges) and output format. Missing return structure details, but schema adequately describes parameters.

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% (baseline 3). The description adds value beyond schema by explaining limit auto-pagination behavior and from/to shorthand support, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 'List Datadog events' (specific verb+resource). It adds pagination and time format details, aiding differentiation from siblings like datadog_logs_search or datadog_monitor_list, though no explicit sibling comparison.

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 implies when to use (listing events with pagination control) but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool guidance. The mirror command provides context but no exclusion criteria.

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