list_events

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It explains the event structure, auto-minting of IDs, and provides an example. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor describe the output format or any limits, leaving some ambiguity about behavior.

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, information-dense sentence. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then elaborates with examples and usage. While not elegantly structured, it contains no filler and each clause adds value.

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 has no parameters or output schema, the description covers the essential context: what events are, how they are used, and a concrete example. Missing pieces like explicit read-only status or response format are minor given the simple nature of a list/reference 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description compensates by explaining the content and format of the returned event catalog, effectively covering what the tool offers even without parameters.

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 lists interaction events attachable to nodes, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('interaction EVENT'). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by specifying the domain (events for node attachment) and enumerating example triggers and actions.

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?

It gives explicit context on when the result is used: when attaching events via new_element/new_section opts.events. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.

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