Read Device Events

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

Without relying on the annotations, the description discloses blocking semantics that the readOnlyHint does not convey: omitting cursor returns retained events immediately, supplying cursor makes the call wait for newer ones. It also adds a workflow constraint (decision check before opening a serial session) that no annotation captures. Minor gaps remain — nothing about retention window or event-volume limits — but the mutation/blocking profile is well covered.

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?

Two dense sentences, each clause load-bearing: the immediate/wait distinction first, the alternative next, the post-read workflow last. No preamble and no repetition of the title.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies the sequencing an agent can't infer from structure alone. It stops short of explaining event retention or how many events typically accumulate, which a caller would still want.

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 100%, so cursor semantics, max_events, and the 86400000 ms cap are already documented in the schema. The description's cursor clause largely restates what the schema already says and adds nothing for max_events. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (reads retained device appearance/disappearance events) and couples it to a condition (immediately when cursor is omitted). It names the sibling it is not — terminal_wait_device_event — so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly covers when to use it (no cursor → immediate read), the alternative (terminal_wait_device_event to wait after a known cursor), and a mandatory follow-up routing rule (terminal_get_connection_decision before opening a serial session after an appeared event). This is exactly the when/when-not/next-step guidance an agent needs.

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