events_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description does add genuinely useful disclosure beyond that: events are redacted of commands, passwords, typed text and file contents, which tells the agent what it can safely log or replay. However, 'recent' is never bounded — no retention window, event cap, or truncation behavior — and it doesn't say the read requires an authenticated local MCP session.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero padding or restatement of the title. It is efficient, though the space saved could have been spent on the cursor parameter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Against that lower bar the definition is still missing two things an agent needs to call it well: what 'recent' bounds (count or time window) and how after_sequence drives incremental reads.

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 carry the meaning of after_sequence, and it says nothing about it. The cursor semantics that matter most for a snapshot tool — pass the last seen sequence to get only newer events, 0/default returns the current buffer — are left entirely to inference from the parameter name.

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 ('Read recent operation lifecycle events') and scopes it to 'this MCP instance', which implicitly separates it from the guest-level event tools in the sibling list. It does not name guest_events explicitly, so the agent must infer the split, but the object of the read is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of guest_events as the alternative for guest-side events, and no polling/cursor guidance despite after_sequence existing. The agent is told what it reads but not when to prefer it over guest_events.

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