get_connpass_user_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, whether past or future events are returned, pagination, or ordering. This leaves significant unknowns for the agent.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action 'Fetch' and immediately specifies the resource. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description is too minimal for a tool that interacts with an external API. It does not explain what the events represent (attending, hosting, etc.), the return format, or any credentials needed. The lack of annotations and output schema combined with a one-line description leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 already covers 100% of the parameters with a clear description for 'nickname'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not clarify the expected format or resolution of the nickname, but the schema suffices.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'events for a specific Connpass user'. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish it from the sibling tool 'get_connpass_user_presenter_events', which also fetches events for a user (presented ones). This ambiguity prevents a perfect score.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or contexts where another tool would be more appropriate, such as when needing presenter-specific events or user group lists. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name.

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