List My Luma Events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the auth-ownership scoping ('authenticated user's') but does not disclose ordering, pagination, or result-shape behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the verb, resource, and scope with no filler or redundancy. 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?

Given the tool's low complexity—two optional parameters, no nested objects, no output schema—the description sufficiently conveys what the tool does and what scope it operates on. It could add minor details like default ordering or result contents, but nothing essential 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?

The schema documents timeframe with an enum and description, while limit has constraints and a default. The tool description mostly restates the timeframe values already in the schema and adds no new meaning for limit, so its contribution beyond the schema is marginal.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('the authenticated user's ... Luma events') and enumerates the three scopes (managed, upcoming, past). This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_events or search_events by making the user-owned scope explicit.

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 makes the intended context clear: it is for the authenticated user's own event collections. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like list_events or state conditions for when not to use this tool, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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