Monitor actor-ready and actor-state-created events

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: it changes persistent executor-side observer/hook state, requires active-client and explicit mutation approval, and needs confirm=true for start/stop. It stops short of describing exactly what observer state is left behind or how to recover it.

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?

The key behavioral warning is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the phase/cost/safety lines are terse. The verbatim Signature block partially duplicates the input schema and adds density, but overall it remains compact and scannable.

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, the 'Produces: bounded-event-snapshot' line and 'Verify with: assert-state' pointer cover the return contract. Requirements, safety, and a failure fallback (inspect tool-schema) are all present, leaving little an agent must infer before calling it.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: confirm must be true before start/stop runs, and the buffer is bounded to 200 (matching the limit cap). The signature block itself mostly repeats schema fields, but the confirm and buffer details go beyond it.

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 states a concrete mechanism: connect to on_actor_added / on_actor_state_created, retain a bounded 200-event buffer, and poll it. This tells an agent what the tool does and how it differs from a live-scan approach. It does not explicitly name the nearest sibling (lua-state-event-monitor), so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

It gives usage context (poll without repeated game-tree scans; start/stop require confirm=true) but never states when to prefer this over alternatives like lua-state-event-monitor or watch-value. The start/poll/stop lifecycle implies usage, but no explicit when-not guidance is present.

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