dreamlayer_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'resume' without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, how it handles missing event IDs, or the format of the response. The absence of any annotation coverage makes this a significant gap.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. The instruction to pass the last event ID is stated early. However, the ambiguity around optionality slightly reduces structure clarity, though it remains efficient overall.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not specify what events are, how they are returned, pagination or limits, or error behavior. An agent cannot reliably call this tool without more context about the expected response and failure modes.

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 explains the purpose of 'last_event_id' but does not explain 'execution_id'. More critically, it implies 'last_event_id' should be passed, yet the schema marks it as optional. This inconsistency confuses the agent about parameter requirements. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should have clarified both parameters and their optionality.

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 states a clear action ('Resume an execution's events') and the resource (execution's events). However, 'drop' and 'events' are not defined, and sibling tools like dreamlayer_execution and dreamlayer_cancel could overlap in purpose. It is specific enough to convey the core function but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 gives a trigger condition ('after a drop') but does not mention any alternatives or when not to use this tool. It does not reference sibling tools like dreamlayer_execution or dreamlayer_cancel for comparison, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage context.

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