pix_list_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that results can be restricted by parent marker or category. It does not disclose pagination, refresh behavior, queue handling, or timeout semantics, but given the annotations cover safety, the added context is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence with no filler and front-loads the primary action, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately brief for a list operation, though it could have included a few more essential details without becoming verbose.

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 8 parameters, one required parameter, zero schema descriptions, and no explanation of pagination or refresh semantics, the one-sentence description is not complete enough for correct invocation. The existence of an output schema helps with return values, but the agent still lacks guidance on what capture_id refers to, how cursor/limit work, and what refresh or queue_name do.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only adds meaning for 'parent' and 'category' via the phrase 'restricted to one parent marker or category.' The required capture_id and important optional parameters like limit, cursor, refresh, queue_name, and timeout_seconds remain unexplained, leaving most of the 8-parameter surface ambiguous.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List capture events', with an optional restriction to 'one parent marker or category.' It is not a tautology and conveys the core function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related siblings like pix_search_events or pix_list_gpu_events, so it does not earn a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The optional parent/category restriction hints at one use case, but the description does not explain when to choose pix_list_events over pix_search_events, pix_get_event, or pix_list_timing_processes. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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