get_proactive_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key side-effect profile: it does not fetch data, does not send messages, and does not auto-acknowledge. It also discloses the 36-hour window and the consumption filter. Missing are ordering, pagination, or idempotency details.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the scope (36 hours, unconsumed) followed by the side-effect disclaimers. Efficient, though the trailing newline and terse fragments make it slightly less polished than it could be.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally say what a candidate event looks like and in what order results arrive; it does not. It covers purpose, window, side effects, and consumer identity, which is adequate but leaves return shape and limit semantics unaddressed.

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 does explain that consumer should be the target session's session_key, but adds nothing about limit (default 20) or its units/semantics, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 verb and resource with scope: read candidate content from the last 36 hours not yet consumed by this consumer. The consumption/window framing gives real meaning beyond the name, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like poll_feeds or feed_query.

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?

Implies usage by telling the caller to pass the target session's session_key as consumer and that the tool does not auto-ACK (implying acknowledge_events must be called separately). However, it never states when to use this versus poll_feeds/feed_query/feed_status, so the routing guidance is only inferable.

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