Recent live IRC events

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

Adds key behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: the buffer is live in-memory since session start, events are incremental via since_seq, and TAGMSGs are included. It aligns with openWorldHint by noting it is not complete history.

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 sentences deliver a complete guide: purpose, polling pattern, and distinction from history tool. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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 an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers event types, cursor semantics, filtering, and the alternative tool. The only missing details (limit/account) are minor and do not impede correct usage.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains the most important parameters: since_seq as a cursor, target as channel/nick, and kinds as event filters. It does not cover limit or account, but the essential usage parameters are well documented.

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 states the tool 'Return recent live IRC events' and enumerates the specific event types included. It explicitly distinguishes from irc_read_history, making its scope and purpose 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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: poll with since_seq as a cursor for new activity, filter by target/kinds, and use irc_read_history for older server-side history. This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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