events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation and mentions pagination, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens with paging cursors. It also doesn't clarify whether 'daemon-owned' implies additional access requirements.

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 sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the main action and resource, then adds the output format. Very efficient and appropriately sized for the purpose.

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 25-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the event structure, pagination loop, or which parameters are needed for remote daemon access. It provides a starting point but not enough to invoke correctly without further schema study.

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 92%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds the pagination concept ('paged'), which gives meaning to 'limit' and 'cursor', but doesn't elaborate on their usage. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 action ('Read') and the resource ('daemon-owned session event timeline'), and adds format details ('paged JSON-friendly entries'). It is specific and understandable, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'logs' or 'get', so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it over siblings. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions.

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