list_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a genuine behavioral constraint — events are returned oldest-first due to API limitations — which is exactly the kind of trait an agent cannot infer. However, it omits read-only nature, pagination behavior, and auth/permission needs.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then the ordering caveat, then Args and Returns — well structured and free of filler. The 'Returns: Events with details' line is thin but not wasteful.

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 read-only listing tool with an output schema present, return-value detail is not required. The description supplies the parameter meanings and the ordering caveat, leaving only minor gaps like pagination and permission requirements.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents 'limit' (default 50) and enumerates the six valid category values (PERSONNEL, CONTROL, MONITOR, CONNECTION, POLICY, VENDOR), which the schema itself does not provide. Only the category null/default behavior is left implicit.

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+resource ('List compliance events from the audit log'), which is clear and unambiguous. There is no other events-listing sibling to differentiate from, but the description doesn't proactively position it against related tools like list_evidence or get_compliance_summary.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource (audit-log events) but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative tool is named, so the agent must infer this is the sole events entry point.

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