memory_events_poll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It explains parameters and return structure, but it omits side effects (e.g., does polling mark events as consumed?) and idempotency details. The description mentions 'unconsumed_only' implying consumption states, but does not clarify behavior.

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 and well-structured, using bullet points for arguments and return. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids unnecessary details. 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?

Given the tool has 3 optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose and parameters well. However, it lacks context on how polling fits into the broader workflow (e.g., repeated polling, clearing events), which slightly reduces 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?

The description fully explains all three parameters, including format for since_timestamp (ISO), example for tags_filter (e.g., ["shared-cache"]), and default behavior for unconsumed_only (default: True). This adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage.

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 the tool 'Poll for memory events (e.g., shared-cache notifications)'. It specifies the verb 'Poll' and the resource 'memory events' with a concrete example, distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_list or memory_events_clear.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it does not explain that polling is for retrieving new events, nor does it mention related tools like memory_events_clear for clearing events.

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