list_event_canned_questions

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation via 'List' but does not disclose any additional behaviors (e.g., pagination, ordering, or whether inactive questions are included). For a simple list, this is minimal but adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It immediately conveys the verb, resource, and scope, and the examples add clarity without bloat.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the core purpose and required input. The only gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from list_event_questions, but that falls under usage guidelines rather than completeness for calling the tool.

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 must explain the event_id parameter. The description only says 'for an event', which adds little beyond the parameter's title. It does not specify the format, source, or any constraints, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('standard canned questions'), and the scope ('for an event'). It also gives examples (Job Title, Company, Address) and distinguishes from the sibling list_event_questions by explicitly using 'standard' and 'canned'.

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 usage through the term 'canned' but does not explicitly contrast with list_event_questions or state when to use one over the other. An agent can infer that this is for built-in questions, but the guidance is not explicit.

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