list_error_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only clarifies that events are occurrences, but does not mention pagination, ordering, response format, or any other runtime behavior. For a read-only list operation, this leaves the agent without important context such as whether results are paginated or ordered.

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 that avoids unnecessary words. It is concise and clearly structured, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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 simple nature of the tool and full schema coverage for inputs, the description is adequate but not complete. With no output schema, it does not describe the return format or pagination behavior, and it omits any usage guidelines beyond the core purpose. Overall, it is minimally viable but lacks richer context.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List events (occurrences) for a specific error' uses a specific verb (List), identifies the resource (events/occurrences), and scopes it to a specific error. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_errors (lists errors) and view_event (views a single event).

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 this tool is used when you need event occurrences for a given error, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like list_errors or view_event, nor does it mention any exclusions. The usage context is clear from the wording but not fully elaborated.

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