umouse_get_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: non-blocking semantics, strictly increasing seq, no replay, and the presence of a buffer field are all disclosed. It omits what happens on overflow beyond naming queueOverflow, and says nothing about auth or rate limits.

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, return shape, and cursor protocol are front-loaded, which is good. The long single-paragraph type enumeration is dense and run-on; it is justified only because the types parameter has no enum, and it could have been structured as a list for far easier scanning.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by giving the return object shape (events/nextSince/buffer), payload shapes for keyEvent and speechCaptured, and per-type semantics. Payloads for most other event types and the meaning of the buffer value remain unspecified.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by establishing the cursor continuation contract for since/nextSince and by enumerating the legal type values that the untyped types array filters on. limit is left to the schema, which is fine.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (非阻塞拉取...设备事件) plus the cursor scope (自上次游标以来), which separates it from the blocking sibling umouse_wait_events. It never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied by the 非阻塞 qualifier rather than stated.

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?

Gives a clear operating protocol: pass 0 on the first call and feed the returned nextSince back as since on every subsequent call. It does not say when to prefer this over umouse_wait_events or when to narrow with the types filter, so no explicit exclusions are offered.

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