get_game_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavior: events originate from Haxe-side emitEvent calls, they coexist with an SSE channel, and the cursor mirrors get_debugger_hits. However, it omits buffer/retention behavior, the destructive effect of `clear`, and any return shape for event objects.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose, then the alternative channel, then the cursor usage. No filler, though the parenthetical emitEvent signature and the get_debugger_hits reference make it slightly dense.

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?

For a 4-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, source, and pagination, but does not describe what a returned game event looks like (id/name/data) or the side effect of the `clear` flag, leaving an agent to infer the response shape.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented (clear, limit, types, since_id). The description only reinforces since_id cursor usage and adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (poll/get) and resource (custom game events emitted via DevBridge.emitEvent(name, data)), and clarifies it complements the real-time SSE 'game_event' channel. An agent can tell it retrieves buffered user-defined game events, though it does not directly distinguish itself from siblings like get_debugger_hits or send_event beyond the cursor-pattern mention.

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?

Provides clear operational context: use since_id from the previous response to fetch only new events, and notes that events also arrive in real time as SSE notifications, hinting at when polling is appropriate. It references get_debugger_hits as a pattern, but states no explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites.

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