list_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It explicitly marks the operation as read-only with '[READ]' and discloses the important truncation behavior: 'Sets truncated: true when more events exist than were returned.' It does not detail every output field, but the key side-effect and boundary behavior are covered.

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 compact and well structured, front-loading the purpose and then providing a useful behavioral note followed by parameter details. There is minor redundancy in saying 'newest first' twice, but no wasteful content otherwise.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, this definition provides enough information to invoke it correctly: it names the resource, sort order, parameter semantics, and the truncation signal. It does not enumerate event fields, but that is not critical for selecting or calling the 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The 'Args' section explains both parameters: top is the number of newest events to return, and target selects a SolarWinds target from config with a default when omitted. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 and resource: 'Most recent SolarWinds Orion events (newest first)'. It clearly identifies the domain (SolarWinds Orion) and the tool's function, distinguishing it from sibling tools like zabbix_events. The '[READ]' prefix reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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 is implied by the purpose: an agent should use this tool when it needs recent SolarWinds Orion events. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it, nor does it compare against alternatives such as active_alerts or zabbix_events, leaving some selection ambiguity among the many monitoring siblings.

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