Read Codex Agent Events

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful non-obvious behaviors: 'Returns immediately' warns the agent this is not a long-poll, and 'Data is omitted by default to avoid flooding the supervisor context' explains the default includeData behavior and its rationale. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, each adding distinct value: operation, latency behavior, default payload behavior, and usage guidance. The most important identifying information is front-loaded in the first sentence, and there is no 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 read-only pagination tool, this covers operation, default data omission, immediate return, and when to use it. Since there is no output schema, the description could have described the event shape a bit more, but 'reduced worker events' plus the agent_status tie-in gives the agent enough context to 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does map to key parameters: 'bounded page' implies limit, 'after a cursor' implies afterCursor, and 'Data is omitted by default' clarifies includeData. However, the required agentId parameter is never mentioned, and cursor semantics are left vague, so compensation is incomplete.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read a bounded page of reduced worker events after a cursor.' It also differentiates from the sibling agent_status by framing itself as the detail-follow-up step, so an agent can tell this tool apart from related status/result tools.

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 explicitly names the triggering context: 'Use this for detail after agent_status shows something worth inspecting.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and points to the relevant sibling. It does not spell out when not to use it or list other alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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