poll_run_events

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the concept of a 'monotonic cursor' and 'live' events, which implies a streaming or incremental read pattern that can be polled repeatedly. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as how cursor progression works, what happens with invalid cursors, or pagination behavior. The added context is helpful but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices important context, making it slightly under-specified for a tool with multiple parameters and a polling use case.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, an output schema, and sits among many related tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return behavior, cursor mechanics, or how this relates to other event-reading tools. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still lacks essential context for an AI agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 only hints at 'after a monotonic cursor' which relates to the after_sequence parameter, but does not explain run_id or limit. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the lack of any description of how they behave or interact in a polling context leaves gaps. The description adds marginal value beyond the raw schema.

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 tool reads live lifecycle events using a monotonic cursor. It identifies the action (read), resource (live lifecycle events), and mechanism (after a monotonic cursor), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_run_events', which likely has similar functionality, so it falls short of a perfect clarity score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other event-related tools like get_run_events. The usage context must be inferred from the name and cursor mention, which is insufficient.

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