memory_events_poll

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

With no annotations, the description provides basic behavioral info: polling, filtering by timestamp/tags, and that unconsumed_only defaults to True. However, it lacks details on idempotency, polling frequency, or side effects.

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: one sentence for purpose, followed by a structured list of arguments with explanations, and a one-line return summary. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, all three parameters, and return type, which is sufficient for basic usage. However, it does not mention pagination, maximum events, or behavior when unconsumed_only is false, which would enhance completeness.

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 0%, but the description adds clear semantics for all three parameters: since_timestamp (ISO format), tags_filter (array of strings, example given), and unconsumed_only (default True). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states 'Poll for memory events' with an example 'shared-cache notifications', making the action and resource explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'memory_events_clear' (clear events) and 'memory_list' (list memories).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains functionality without indicating when polling is appropriate or when other tools are better suited.

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