events_read

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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the structured fields: the 'dropped' flag signals buffer overflow and missing events must not be inferred. It does not explain polling cadence or return shape, keeping it from a 5.

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, zero waste, and the core read semantics are front-loaded before the buffer-overflow caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only, one-parameter tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cursor semantics, and the dropped-flag overflow behavior. It is nearly complete, though it omits guidance on how the event stream relates to events_subscribe.

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 0% for the single 'after' parameter, so the description must compensate. Calling it a 'cursor' clarifies that after is an opaque continuation token rather than a plain index, but it adds no format or default details beyond that.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Read subscribed viewer events after a cursor.' The word 'subscribed' implicitly ties it to events_subscribe/events_unsubscribe, so an agent can place it in the family. It stops short of naming the siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully 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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus events_subscribe, events_unsubscribe, or any polling alternative. The phrase 'after a cursor' weakly implies incremental polling, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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