tail_deliberation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states read-only cursor-based reading. It does not disclose the long-polling/wait behavior implied by wait_for_change and wait_timeout_seconds, event ordering guarantees, or how cursor advancement works. This is a significant transparency gap for a potentially blocking tool.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. However, it is quite terse for a tool with five parameters and potentially blocking behavior, so it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description leaves out critical context: the tool can wait for changes, the timeout parameter has no described behavior, and there is no guidance on how this relates to reading vs. listing deliberations. For a tool of this complexity with zero annotations, the description is not complete enough.

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%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'after a sequence cursor' loosely clarifies after_seq, but the description adds no meaning for job_id, limit, wait_for_change, or wait_timeout_seconds. Parameter names hint at their roles, but the description does not explain them.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('job events') with a clear qualifier ('after a sequence cursor'), which conveys an incremental tail operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_deliberation or list_deliberations, but the cursor-based event reading is a distinct enough purpose.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of polling patterns, and no exclusionary context. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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