dsh_tail

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful beyond-annotation context: content is fetched from DSH history when reachable and is never copied into bridge persistence. This helps the agent understand external reachability and data-hygiene semantics, though failure behavior when history is unreachable is not disclosed.

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 from the core behavior without fluff. The action, the resource, the mechanism, and the key data-handling constraint are all stated efficiently and front-loaded into the first sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is responsible for shaping an adequate mental model. It does not explain the meaning of the four parameters, how a cursor should be obtained or advanced, or what a digest structurally contains. The description is useful but not complete enough for a correct invocation beyond trial and error.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It hints at the 'bounded' nature of maxBytes/maxEvents and at 'cursors' for sinceCursor, but it never maps these concepts to any named parameter or explains their roles. taskId remains completely unaddressed.

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 clear verb ('Read') and resource ('bounded event digests'), so an agent knows what the tool does. It also adds the mechanism ('bridge coordination cursors'), though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like dsh_observe or dsh_list.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'bounded event digests' implies a history/tail-style use case, but the description never states conditions, exclusions, or which sibling tool might be more appropriate. This is essentially absent guidance.

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