List capture events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it says results exclude call parameters and timings, which clarifies return content, and 'Page through' indicates pagination behavior. This goes beyond the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second covers filters and return limitations. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (names and indices, not parameters or timings) and the filtering/pagination features. It could add ordering or more detail on result structure, but for a list tool with these annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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 only 13% (only capture_path has a description), so the description must compensate. It does by mapping filters to parameters: function-name regex, category, thread, and event-index range. It also implies limit/offset via 'Page through'. This provides meaningful semantics beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states the tool pages through an exported API function stream, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_capture_resources or get_capture_logs. It also clarifies that results contain names and indices, not call parameters or timings, further differentiating its purpose.

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 provides clear context by explaining the filtering options (function-name regex, category, thread, event-index range) and the pagination nature. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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