Renforge Poll Events

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only the event categories and the incremental cutoff; it says nothing about whether polling consumes or drops events, whether calls block, ordering guarantees, or cursor/sequence semantics — all critical for a polling tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action, the payload, and the cursor constraint. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted. However, for a stateful polling cursor tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the description leaves key invocation semantics (cursor units, consumption behavior) unspecified.

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%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains that `since` is a lower bound on event recency, but leaves the type ambiguous (integer sequence counter vs. timestamp) and says nothing about `project_path`, the required 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?

States a specific verb (return/poll) and resource (pushed events), and enumerates the payload kinds: dialogue, labels, exceptions. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like renforge_get_errors or renforge_game_state, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly to sharpen the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives (e.g. renforge_get_errors, renforge_game_state). The `since` cursor implies an incremental-polling pattern, but the agent must infer that entirely; there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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