get_signal_events

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

The description discloses behavior beyond the annotations: it clears the buffer by default and mentions the return fields. It also notes a dependency on run_interactive. No contradiction with annotations; it adds useful context.

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, with two clear sentences. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes essential return and side-effect information without unnecessary detail.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, return values, side effect, and a prerequisite. It could mention empty-buffer behavior, but annotations and schema cover safety, making it sufficiently complete.

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 schema fully documents the 'clear' parameter with its default and effect. The description restates the default behavior but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving buffered signal events. It specifies the source (subscribe_signals) and the return content (signal name, arguments, timestamp), which distinguishes it from siblings like subscribe_signals or wait_for_signal.

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 states a prerequisite (requires run_interactive) and implies typical usage after subscribing to signals. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using wait_for_signal for a single signal instead.

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