events_status

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds value by disclosing the payload surface and the important caveat that agent status is 'last known' — i.e. potentially stale — which annotations cannot convey.

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 front-loaded sentence listing the three things returned, with no filler. Every clause earns its place, including the parenthetical naming the seq fields.

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?

With an output schema documenting return values, full annotation coverage, and no parameters, the description needs only to frame what the tool reports — which it does. A small gap: it doesn't say what happens when the tap is disconnected, though 'connection' in the summary implies that is reported rather than raised.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because there is none to add.

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 resource — the live event tap — and enumerates exactly what it returns: connection state, buffer bounds (oldest_seq, latest_seq), and per-pane agent status. That clearly separates it from events_recent (event lists) and events_wait (blocking waits), though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer you call this to inspect tap health before consuming events, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to events_recent or events_wait as alternatives.

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