Wait for new 2ools project activity

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds meaningful behavior: the 20-second timeout limit, the oldest-first ordering, and the resync_required fallback logic. It also explains cursor semantics, which is valuable for correct invocation.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying essential information: timeout, event ordering, and resync behavior. No filler or repetition. The structure is front-loaded with the core action and then clarifies response ordering and edge-case handling.

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 polling tool with no output schema, the description explains the key behavioral aspects (blocking, ordering, resync) and is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly. It could be slightly more explicit about the response envelope (e.g., timed_out flag), but the timeout_seconds parameter description hints at it, so the gap is minor.

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 already provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions for project_id, after_cursor, limit, and timeout_seconds. The description does not add much beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does reference head_cursor/next_cursor indirectly, but those concepts are already in the schema for after_cursor.

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 states a specific action: wait up to 20 seconds for project events newer than a cursor. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by describing its blocking behavior and the order of returned events, which sets it apart from immediate-fetch tools like get_project_activity.

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 references an alternative in a specific condition: 'If resync_required is true, paginate get_project_activity instead of advancing the cursor.' It also provides context on why to use this tool ('so an outside agent can process them in order'). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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