event_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds one behavioral trait: the result is 'capped' (limited), which is useful. However, it does not specify the cap value, pagination behavior, or what exactly constitutes an 'event' in the return, leaving the agent to guess the practical limitations.

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 compact sentence: 'List every event in the project (capped).' Every word earns its place; 'capped' is a necessary caveat. No filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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, zero-parameter list tool, the description covers the essentials but leaves the 'cap' ambiguous and does not indicate the output format (which matters because there is no output schema). The agent knows it will get a (possibly limited) list of events, but not the size limit, ordering, or whether it returns full event objects or just identifiers.

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 baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add about parameters, and the input schema is empty, so no information is missing. The description does not conflict with the schema.

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 every event') and the scope ('in the project'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like event_lookup (specific event lookup) and event_list_tracks (tracks of an event). The parenthetical '(capped)' adds an important qualifier about scope.

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 usage context is implied: use this to get all events in the project. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this instead of alternative listing/lookup tools, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The description itself provides the primary usage context but doesn't steer the agent away from or toward siblings.

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