bank_list_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'capped' which hints at a limit, but doesn't explain what the cap is, how it behaves (e.g., pagination, truncation), or any side effects. It also doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, though listing is typically safe. The lack of detail on the cap and return format is a gap.

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, with a one-line purpose and a single parameter explanation. It's front-loaded and efficient. The only minor issue is that the 'Args' section is redundant with the schema, but it's not harmful. It earns a 4 for being appropriately sized.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema), so the description is mostly complete. However, the 'capped' behavior is unexplained, and there's no mention of what the returned list contains (e.g., event names, IDs). Given the simplicity, it's adequate but leaves some questions about the cap and output format.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains bank_target as 'bank:/ path or {guid}', which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'string' type. However, it doesn't provide examples or clarify the format of the path or GUID. Given the single parameter and the minimal explanation, it's adequate but not rich.

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 events assigned to a bank, with a cap. The verb 'list' and resource 'events assigned to a bank' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like bank_info (which likely describes the bank itself) and event_list (which lists all events globally). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, so it's not a 5.

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: when you need to see events in a bank. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like event_list or bank_info. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on choosing between this and similar list tools.

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