cs_agent_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe-read nature is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by mentioning the ability to 'briefly wait' (long-polling) and the 'opaque cursor' mechanism for incremental reads. No contradiction.

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 incredibly concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, immediately followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundant 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?

For a polling tool with all-optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, cursor semantics, and the long-poll behavior. However, it does not describe the structure of the returned 'events' or ordering guarantees, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema. Still, the overall context is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all five parameters, including detailed explanations for limit, turnId, waitMs, agentId, and afterCursor. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only reinforcing the 'opaque cursor' and 'wait' concepts, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Read or briefly wait') and the resource ('structured delegation events after an opaque cursor'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with the 'reply-oriented cs_agent_wait_message call'.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use for progress monitoring across agents or turns'. It also names the alternative (cs_agent_wait_message) and explains when that alternative is not sufficient, giving a clear decision rule.

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