sigsci_list_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'List events for a site' with no mention of side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or return format. This is completely opaque.

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 extremely concise (4 words), but it is under-specified. It lacks critical details that would make it useful, so the brevity sacrifices informativeness.

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's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain what events are, how pagination works, the behavior of timestamps, or any other contextual information needed for proper use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., corpName, siteName, from, until, sort, etc.). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'events for a site', making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from similar siblings like sigsci_list_alerts or sigsci_list_agents, which also list resources for a site.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent receives no help in choosing between this and other list tools.

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