event_pull

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that results are incremental from a cursor; it says nothing about ordering, whether limit truncates results, how to detect end-of-stream, or what the response contains, all of which matter for a polling tool with no annotations.

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?

A single short sentence with the incremental/cursor constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the missing behavioral 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?

With four parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unexplained: cursor semantics for paging, limit behavior, response shape, and scope of agent_id vs team_id are all absent.

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 for four undocumented parameters. It only explains since_id as a cursor (events after it) and says nothing about agent_id, team_id, or the meaning/limits of the limit parameter.

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 specific verb (增量拉取 / incrementally pull) and resource (团队事件流 / team event stream), and the parenthetical clarifies the cursor-based scope (events after since_id). This distinguishes it from event_post, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Incremental/cursor semantics imply the polling use case, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus event_post or how it relates to the memory/recall siblings, and no preconditions (e.g., required agent/team membership) are given.

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