Poll a session for new output

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses blocking behavior, wait limits, return contents, finished/working status, and the cursor contract. This is a high level of transparency for an agent.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The most important behavior (blocking return with fresh cursor) is front-loaded, and each sentence adds a distinct operational detail.

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 polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the call pattern, return semantics, termination signal, and progress signal. Nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context around wait_seconds ('short waits mean more polls... every extra poll is another chance to lose the thread') and clarifies the cursor usage pattern. That pushes it above the baseline without being redundant.

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 names a specific action ('Watch a session'), the resource (session output), and the key mechanism (cursor-based incremental retrieval). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like read_transcript or session_status by emphasizing blocking, cursors, and repeated polling.

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 explicit usage guidance: call repeatedly to follow a long task, call again with the returned cursor if still working, and rely on assistant turns as the progress signal. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives like read_transcript or session_status, so it misses a small opportunity for routing clarity.

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