Read live ZCode execution 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 well: it discloses that raw is the default view, that summary merges adjacent model-text chunks, that next_seq advances across all scanned events, that hidden reasoning is excluded, and that interaction_requested events include bounded detail. It does not state read-only nature, error behavior, or what limit does under the hood.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the middle is dense and mixes tool semantics with agent workflow instructions ('report the project path... report the ZCode session...'). It is information-rich but longer than needed and not tightly scoped to describing the tool itself.

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-value explanation is not required, and the description focuses on how to page and poll. Given the 5-param, no-annotation surface, it gives the agent enough to call and drive the tool correctly, aside from the undocumented limit parameter.

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 and largely does: view (summary merges chunks; raw default), after_seq (last next_seq), and wait_ms (up to 25000) are all explained. limit is never mentioned, and task_id is left to the pattern in 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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource: 'Read persisted progress events for a task.' That is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like zcode_progress_probe, zcode_status, or zcode_result, leaving the agent to infer which read path to use.

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?

Strong operational guidance: set after_seq to the last next_seq, keep polling until turn_started or startup failure, wait_ms up to 25000. This tells the agent how to drive the polling loop. It does not, however, name an alternative sibling or state when NOT to use this tool in favor of zcode_progress_probe/zcode_status.

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