wait_for_events

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety and behavior burden. It discloses the long-polling blocking behavior and the timeout_seconds parameter, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, what happens on timeout, or any rate-limit or side-effect profile, leaving some inference required.

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 remarkably concise: two lines, front-loaded with the core behavior, then the usage tip. Every word adds value, with no repetition of schema details.

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, the description covers the essential loop and timeout, and the output schema defines return shape. But it misses the kind filter and does not explicitly describe timeout behavior or empty-result handling, which an agent would need for robust usage given no annotations.

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 description explains after_id ('id > after_id') and timeout_seconds ('hasta timeout_seconds'), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, the 'kind' parameter is entirely omitted, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 behavior: a long-poll that waits for events with id > after_id, up to timeout_seconds. This clearly identifies the resource and condition, distinguishing it from siblings like get_events by its blocking, incremental nature, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 recommendation 'guarda next_after_id y vuelvelo a pasar' gives an explicit usage pattern for live consumption. It provides clear context on how to use the tool repeatedly, but it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as get_events.

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