list_events

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

With no annotations, the description explains the search behavior (keyword/category) and special case of empty args returning all. For a read-only list tool, this is sufficient transparency. No hidden side effects are implied.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a list of categories. All information is front-loaded and relevant, with 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, output schema exists), the description covers the essential functionality and filtering options. It could mention matching behavior (exact/partial) but is otherwise 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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description adds meaning by indicating 'query' is a keyword and 'category' is one of the listed categories. This compensates for the schema gap, though no format or examples are given.

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's purpose: 'Search the Event catalog by keyword and/or category.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'trigger_event' and the various read/write/set tools by focusing on listing events.

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 implies when to use (to search for events) but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or differentiate from alternative search tools like 'list_simvars'. The category listing adds context but no exclusions.

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