host_slicing_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits beyond the schema: results may contain dropped-event gaps, events represent stages rather than progress percentages, and the epoch must be compared on reload. Missing is anything on cursor advancement (what to pass as `after` next), permissions, or rate/volume behavior, so it stops short of 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with prerequisites and caveats following. No padding. "Compare epoch on reload" is terse to the point of ambiguity, which costs it a point.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and prerequisites plus stage/gap semantics are covered. However, an event-cursor tool should tell the agent how to advance the cursor and what happens when the limit is hit; that omission leaves a real gap for correct invocation.

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. "After a sequence cursor" effectively explains the `after` parameter, but `limit` is only obliquely gestured at via "bounded" — no defaults, no maximum, no ordering guidance. Partial compensation earns a 3.

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 names a specific verb and resource — read bounded native pipeline events after a sequence cursor — plus scope qualifiers (bounded, gap-aware). An agent can grasp what comes back. It never distinguishes itself from similar siblings such as job_log, job_status, or batch_status, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives a real prerequisite: select the RRS MCP slicing observer in the process preset slicing_pipeline_plugin first. That is useful gating context. But it never says when to prefer this tool over job_log/batch_status/job_status, nor when not to use it, so usage is only implied.

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