Orchestration MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Long-poll' and 'incremental events,' hinting at real-time behavior and potential waiting, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'events' entail. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for an agent.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information ('Long-poll incremental events') without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and key parameter.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and one parameter but misses details on other parameters, behavioral traits, and usage context. The output schema helps, but more guidance is needed for effective tool use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'after_seq' as 'after a known sequence number,' adding context beyond the schema's numeric constraints. However, it doesn't cover other parameters like run_id, limit, or wait_ms, leaving them undocumented. Baseline is 3 due to partial compensation.

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 ('Long-poll incremental events') and resource ('for a run'), specifying it retrieves events after a known sequence number. It distinguishes from siblings like get_event_artifact or get_run by focusing on incremental polling rather than direct fetching, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage for monitoring incremental events in a run after a specific sequence, suggesting it's for real-time updates. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like get_event_artifact or list_runs, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an active run.

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