renforge_poll_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clarifies that the tool returns a specific set of event types and filters by timestamp, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose whether events are consumed/cleared after polling or any other side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no filler or redundancy. It earns its place efficiently.

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 tool is straightforward and an output schema exists, but the description leaves the required `project_path` parameter unexplained. This is a notable gap for agents selecting and invoking the tool, though the timestamp filtering is clear. The overall context is sufficient but not 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 description gives meaning to `since` as a timestamp cutoff but provides no explanation for the required `project_path` parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation, especially since `project_path` is required and unclear.

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 returns pushed events (dialogue, labels, exceptions) filtered by a timestamp, which is a distinct operation from siblings like game_state or get_errors. The verb 'Return' and the resource 'pushed events' make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage for polling new events after a given time, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like get_errors or game_state. The context 'newer than since' signals the intended polling pattern, but no exclusions or alternative tools are named.

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