events_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. It adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: the stream is 'shared per-session', reads are 'count- and deadline-bounded', and afterSequence enables 'exactly-once continuation'. These are meaningful guarantees an agent needs before calling.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and scope; the second delivers the critical usage pattern (afterSequence continuation). Every clause earns its place.

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 captures the core protocol — bounded reads, per-session stream, exactly-once continuation — but leaves notable gaps: the meaning of 'native events', what provider and nativeId identify, the exact behavior of limit and timeoutMs, and the return format (there is no output schema). It is conceptually rich but not fully self-sufficient for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage.

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 meaningfully explains afterSequence ('pass the last event sequence back... for exactly-once continuation') and indirectly maps limit and timeoutMs via 'count- and deadline-bounded'. However, the two required parameters, provider and nativeId, are never described at all, which is a significant gap for a tool whose schema offers no prose help.

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 and resource — 'Read bounded native events from one shared per-session stream' — and conveys clear scope and semantics. It distinguishes itself from siblings like watch_thread or get_thread_messages through the 'native events' / 'per-session stream' resource, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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 when to use the tool: for bounded, reliable event-stream reads with 'exactly-once continuation' via afterSequence. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as watch_thread, get_thread_messages, or conversation_read, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing.

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