Poll Live Gui Session Events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral fact (events unsupported), which is useful, but it omits the crucial detail of what actually happens on invocation — an error, an empty list, or a status string — which is the single most important thing to know for a tool whose sole purpose is reporting a negative.

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?

One short sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, which is structurally sound. But the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision — the sentence earns its place yet leaves obvious questions unanswered for a 2-parameter tool.

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 a required parameter lacking any description, the description would need to explain the call's result and required inputs. It does neither, so an agent cannot predict the outcome of calling this tool, making it contextually incomplete for anything beyond signaling that the feature is absent.

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 only 50%: schematic_path is required but completely undocumented in both schema and description, while workspace_root is covered by the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, leaving the mandatory argument unexplained against a low-coverage schema where the description is expected to compensate.

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 does convey a concrete fact — GUI session events are not supported — which is genuinely distinct information from the sibling poll_live_gui_session, whose behavior it must not be confused with. However, 'Report that GUI events are unsupported' does not state the verb+resource pairing an agent expects (poll what, return what), and never references the schematic_path it requires. It is understandable but under-specified as a purpose statement.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent can infer that this tool is a dead end for event streaming, but it is not told whether to call it to confirm unsupported status, to skip it entirely, or which sibling (poll_live_gui_session, describe_live_gui_support) supersedes it. No alternatives are named.

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