poll_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the polling pattern, the cursor-based incremental semantics, and the push limitation. However, it doesn't disclose return format details, error behavior, or the 'dropped' overflow mechanism beyond what the schema already states — leaving behavioral depth mostly to the output schema.

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 short Korean paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the rationale. The internal reference '[5-C]' is cryptic but harmless. Efficient overall, though the second paragraph's rationale could be tighter.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not the description's burden. It covers the polling pattern, cursor semantics, and the why. Minor gaps: it doesn't mention the 'dropped' loss notification or edge cases, but these are captured in the schema, making the definition reasonably complete for a polling tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description references the cursor concept and the ring-overflow 'dropped' mechanism, but it doesn't add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents. It stays at baseline without compensating further.

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 states a specific verb+resource+scope: polls user state changes (focus/filter) incrementally after a cursor. This clearly distinguishes it from all 40+ sibling tools, none of which poll events. The scope constraint ('커서 이후분만' — only after the cursor) is precise and 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 explicitly explains when to call it: 'AI 는 작업 사이에 이걸 호출해 사람의 변화를 따라잡는다' (AI should call this between tasks to catch up on human changes), with the rationale that MCP is one-shot request/response so the server cannot push. This is clear usage context, though it doesn't name specific alternatives or state when not to use it.

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