Wait for new 2ools project activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the wait behavior (up to 20 seconds), the ordering (oldest-first), and the resync fallback scenario. It does not elaborate on error behavior or rate limits, but given the strong annotation coverage, the additional context is valuable and consistent.

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 two sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: the first explains the core polling behavior and ordering, the second explains the resync edge case. No redundant or filler language is present, 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description covers the wait behavior, ordering, and resync condition adequately. It does not explain the return format (e.g., events array, timed_out flag), but the output schema is absent, so the agent would need to infer or rely on documentation elsewhere. Still, the description is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema (e.g., explaining 'after_cursor' as head_cursor or next_cursor), but it does give important context for the whole parameter set by describing the overall polling flow. This adds some value but does not go beyond what the schema already provides.

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 defines the tool's purpose: polling for new project events by waiting up to 20 seconds and returning them in chronological order. It specifies the verb 'Wait', the resource 'attributable project events', and key constraints (newer than a cursor, oldest-first ordering), distinguishing it well from its sibling `get_project_activity` which is implied as a non-waiting, direct query tool.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool for polling new events and mentions a specific condition ('if resync_required is true, paginate get_project_activity instead of advancing the cursor'). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide a direct comparison to the sibling `get_project_activity` (only implies it through the resync guidance).

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