Monitor messages on an Actor communication channel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further: it flags that start/stop write live game state, that executor-side observer state persists, that explicit mutation approval is required, that the buffer is bounded to 200 messages, and where to look on failure. The remaining vagueness is what exactly 'writes live game state' mutates and whether poll itself is side-effect free.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded and the operational facts (confirm requirement, buffer size, key) come early. However, the inline Signature block duplicates the input schema field-for-field, and tag soup like 'Phase: act; cost=medium; idempotency=contextual-write' plus 'Capabilities: create_comm_channel' adds volume without much decision value.

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 mutating, 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers mutation consequences, approval prerequisites, buffer bounding, and a failure-recovery pointer (tool-schema, assert-state), which is enough to call it safely. It stops short of describing what a poll returns beyond 'bounded-event-snapshot'.

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 real semantics: which actions (start/stop) require confirm=true, that polling is keyed by monitor key, and that limit is a hard budget tied to the 200-message buffer. The signature block itself mostly restates schema fields, so it does not go beyond a 4.

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 specific verb and resource: connect to Channel.Event, retain a bounded 200-message buffer, and poll by monitor key. It is clearly distinguishable from generic execute/eval siblings, but it never names or contrasts with the closest siblings (actor-event-monitor, lua-state-event-monitor, get-comm-channel), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: start/stop require confirm=true and polling is keyed, which tells the agent how to call it but not when to prefer it over sibling monitors or the one-shot get-comm-channel. No explicit when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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