events

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

The description discloses key behaviors: blocking nature, return format (events with sessionId and agentId), and Nagle-style coalescing. No annotations are present, so description carries the full burden and does so well, though it could mention error conditions or permissions.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences. Each sentence adds value: main action, return format, and optional feature. No wasted words.

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 description is adequate given no output schema: it explains when to use, blocking behavior, parameters, and return format minimally. It could detail the event structure but the provided identifiers are likely sufficient in context of sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The tool description adds meaning by explaining the parameters in context: 'block until' for timeoutMs and 'Nagle-style coalescing' for nagleMs, enriching understanding beyond the schema.

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 states the tool blocks until any prompted session produces events and returns events with identifiers. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like prompt_events by implying it is used after prompting.

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 implies it should be used after prompting sessions ('any prompted session'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is sufficient for appropriate selection.

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