get_subagent_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by revealing the output format (NDJSON) and the polling/catch-up use case, but it leaves gaps: it doesn't explain ordering, the inclusive/exclusive semantics of since_event_id, default limit behavior when limit is omitted, or what happens when no events exist.

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?

Two focused sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality and key parameter; the second gives usage context. No fluff, no repetition.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and the description covers its purpose, output format, and intended usage. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should more thoroughly explain run_id semantics and limit behavior, and how run_id relates to other subagent tools. The absence of these details leaves an agent guessing on how to correctly construct a call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at since_event_id ('since a given event id'). It doesn't explain run_id (how to obtain it, that it identifies the subagent) or limit (pagination/result size). The schema provides types and constraints but not semantic meaning.

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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('NDJSON events emitted by a subagent'), and the key scope ('since a given event id'). It also naturally distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_subagent_status and get_subagent_result by focusing specifically on the event stream.

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?

The description explicitly identifies when to use the tool: for polling or catching up after a notifications/resources/updated ping. This gives clear contextual guidance, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for exclusions.

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