Stage Events

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

With no annotations the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses ordering, the listen side effect, the identity shown to others via who= ('an unnamed agent' default), voice_in→voice_message sequencing, and cmd_done replies. Missing only failure/empty behavior and pagination limits.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and output shape, and every clause adds real information. Structure suffers from being one long run-on paragraph with stacked parentheticals, which hurts scanability for a 6-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?

For a 6-param, annotation-free polling tool with an output schema, the description covers filtering, cadence, streaming semantics and the social side effect. Only limit= meaning and error/empty behavior are left 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: since= (event id, 0 = most recent limit), types= with example values, wait= (seconds, cap 60), who= (headset display name). limit= and scene= are only implied rather than defined, leaving a small gap.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource: events on the stage page for a scene, ordered oldest first, with the line shape spelled out. An agent knows exactly what it gets, though no sibling (e.g. stage_on_air_log, stage_takes) is named to distinguish scope.

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?

Explains the polling pattern explicitly (pass the newest id as since= next time, wait= for long poll up to 60s, types= to filter) and notes the listening side effect of following with since=. Lacks explicit when-not/when-to-use-a-sibling routing.

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