Get Recent Eos Status Feedback

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

The description enriches the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) with important behavioral details: the asynchronous/non-live nature, session-scoped buffering, and the meaning of an empty array (including a troubleshooting hint about OSC TX connectivity). This goes significantly beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement, a two-sentence usage caveat, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 the tool's simplicity (read-only, 2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers everything needed: what it does, when to use it, parameter semantics, return format, and how to interpret empty results. The troubleshooting note about OSC TX adds completeness that the annotations cannot provide.

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 description adds practical meaning to both parameters: filter with substring examples and the "Omit for everything" behavior, and limit with "most recent last" ordering plus the default (which matches the schema). The schema already documents filter and limit's default/range, but the description clarifies usage semantics and return-order expectations.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Read back recent OSC feedback Eos has sent," with concrete examples (active cue, command line text, live/blind state). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are all control/action tools (e.g., eos_fire_cue, eos_go, eos_set_channel_level) rather than status reads.

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?

States a clear usage context: Eos pushes asynchronously, so the tool returns whatever has arrived so far and should be called shortly after an action to see the effect. While it doesn't explicitly describe alternatives, the sibling list contains no competing read-status tool, making the intended use unambiguous.

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