cicd_events

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names the event categories but never explains what "drain" mechanically does: whether events are consumed/removed versus merely peeked, whether the call blocks until events arrive, or how often it should be repeated. For an operation whose name suggests state mutation, this leaves the most consequential behavior undisclosed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The only cost to clarity is the unexplained jargon "greens," which a reader may not decode without extra context.

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?

The tool is simple (zero params, no nested objects, no output schema), so the description needs only purpose, timing, and return semantics to be complete. Purpose and timing are covered, but with no output schema the description should state what a drain returns and whether the drained events are consumed, and it does not.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case where there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description adds a useful note about the event categories handled, even though nothing parameter-related is needed.

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?

"Drain pending CI/CD events" is a specific verb+resource, and the parenthetical enumerates the event kinds (failures, greens, deploy completions), so the agent knows this is a consumptive drain rather than a query. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like ci_runs or cicd_start, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"Call between development steps" gives a timing cue, which is real guidance about when to invoke. There is no when-not guidance, no statement about how often to drain, and no mention of alternatives such as ci_runs for querying run history, leaving the choice partly to inference.

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