get_project_events

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description reinforces that the operation is read-only and non-mutating. It adds value by stating that missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, and rate limits are returned as errors. That is useful behavioral context beyond what the annotations declare.

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 reasonably concise, starts with the core purpose, and then layers usage guidance and error behavior in a small number of sentences. There is minor redundancy with the readOnly annotation, but the structure is efficient overall.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and error behavior, which is fairly complete given the read-only annotation and parameter-documented schema. However, the group_id reference with no matching schema parameter and the absence of any output-format details for the listed events leave a few ambiguities for agent decision-making.

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 covers all 8 parameters with detailed descriptions, so the schema carries the documentation burden. The description only adds generic reminders about identifiers and pagination. It also mentions group_id, but the schema does not include a group_id parameter, which is a slight inconsistency.

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 starts with a clear verb and object: 'List events for a project'. It adds filtering context with before/after dates and positions this tool as one for a known resource or result. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_events or search tools by name, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use this tool for a known resource or result and to choose a corresponding list/search tool when discovering multiple resources. This is strong usage guidance, but the alternative tools are not named, leaving some inference required.

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