github_user_events

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions public events and normalization but lacks details on pagination limits, rate limits, or output structure beyond high-level fields.

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?

Two sentences delivering the essential purpose and output description. No redundant information, well front-loaded.

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?

No output schema, but the description gives a clear high-level view of return values (page of events normalized to type, repo, timestamp). Adequate for a simple list tool, though more detail on pagination could help.

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?

All three parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the output is normalized to type, repository, and timestamp, aiding in tool selection.

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 it lists a GitHub user's recent public activity, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_user or github_user_repos by focusing on events.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_user_repos or github_trending. Usage is implied but not clarified with exclusions or prerequisites.

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