get_houdini_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the side effect of clearing the buffer after returning events, which is a key behavioral trait. It also mentions the optional timestamp filtering and the types of events returned. This provides good transparency, though it doesn't specify the exact structure of returned events.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes only relevant details. It efficiently covers the tool's behavior, side effect, and parameter without any fluff.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it behaves (clears buffer), and how to use the optional parameter. It doesn't describe the return format or event structure, but this is not critical given the context. It could also mention the relationship to subscribe_houdini_events, but that's a minor gap.

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. It does so by explaining that the 'since' parameter is a timestamp to filter events after a given time. This adds critical meaning that the raw schema (type number, default null) lacks, though it could be more specific about the timestamp format (e.g., Unix seconds).

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 ('Get') with a clear resource ('pending Houdini events') and lists event categories (scene changes, node operations, frame changes). It distinguishes itself from the sibling subscribe_houdini_events by emphasizing 'pending' and 'clears the buffer', which implies a polling mechanism rather than a continuous subscription.

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 description clearly implies a polling workflow ('since last poll', 'clears the buffer') and explains how to use the optional timestamp to filter events. However, it does not explicitly mention the alternative subscribe_houdini_events or state when to use this tool versus that one, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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