dsh_tail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: content is fetched live from DSH history and never persisted into bridge storage. The 'when reachable' caveat also informs the agent about potential availability issues, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scoped. Every clause adds meaningful information about data source, boundedness, or persistence without redundancy. It is appropriately structured for quick reading.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should include return value expectations, pagination behavior, or error handling. It covers only general purpose and data flow, leaving the agent without enough detail to interpret results or configure the tool correctly for taskId and cursor parameters.

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%, with no parameter descriptions in the schema or the tool description. The description does not explain taskId, maxBytes, maxEvents, or sinceCursor, despite mentioning 'cursors' generically. This is a significant gap for correct invocation with four parameters.

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 identifies the action ('Read') and the resource ('bounded event digests') and specifies that it uses bridge coordination cursors. It distinguishes from siblings like dsh_observe by indicating historical access, though the jargon 'bridge coordination cursors' and 'DSH history' may not be immediately meaningful to all agents.

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?

No explicit usage guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives like dsh_observe or dsh_status. The phrase 'when reachable' hints at a prerequisite but does not specify fallback tools or typical scenarios. The description lacks any 'use when...' or 'not for...' guidance.

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