List playlist events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds a genuinely non-obvious side-effect guarantee: reading events does not enqueue or retry captures. It also discloses ordering and the returned shape (events and count) despite no output schema. It stops short of covering pagination/truncation behavior beyond the limit default, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it does and ordering first, then routing guidance, then return shape and side-effect guarantee. No sentence is redundant with the title or schema.

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?

A zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations needs little more, yet the description still supplies ordering, return shape, sibling routing, and a no-side-effects guarantee. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description adds the meaningful interaction that results are newest-first while being filtered by playlist or lifecycle state, which tells the agent how `limit` truncates the set. It does not restate enum values or ID provenance, leaving those to the schema.

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 and resource (list recorded playlist-discovery events) plus ordering (newest first) and optional filters. It also distinguishes itself by name from poll_monitored_playlist and list_monitored_playlists, so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.

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?

"Use to inspect what monitoring found" defines the use case, and the description explicitly routes to poll_monitored_playlist for refreshing observations and list_monitored_playlists for monitor settings. The alternatives and the condition that selects each are named, not implied.

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