poll_events

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the 1000-entry ring buffer size, cursor-based consumption (since_seq inclusive), cap on returned events (max_count up to 1000), and the 'dropped' flag to indicate buffer overflow. This is comprehensive transparency.

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 dense paragraph with efficient use of words. It front-loads the core action ('drain editor events') and then adds necessary technical details. Minor structural improvements could be made (e.g., separating usage steps), but it is well within acceptable conciseness.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers the response contract (slice of events with cursor, 'dropped' flag). It also explains the error condition (buffer overflow). It could be more explicit about the event structure, but the context signals indicate moderate complexity, and the description provides sufficient guidance.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of each parameter: since_seq's default (-1) and inclusive cursor behavior, max_count's default (100) and hard max (1000), and event_filter's substring matching with OR combination. This exceeds basic schema documentation.

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 clearly identifies it as a 'Tier 2 entrypoint' for draining editor events, names specific event types (actor_spawned, actor_deleted, asset_added), and describes the polling mechanism. It distinguishes itself from sibling polling tools like poll_subscription and poll_task by focusing on event-driven polling with a ring buffer cursor.

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?

Provides explicit usage instructions: first call with since_seq=-1 to obtain next_seq, then poll with that value. Documents the 'dropped' flag for overflow detection. However, it does not compare or contrast with sibling polling tools (poll_subscription, poll_task), which would aid in selecting the correct tool.

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