Read run events

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses real behavioral detail: it uses a cursor, and with wait_for_done it polls at ~1 Hz until the run finishes. This gives the agent meaningful expectations about side effects and timing. It does not describe output format, but the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 sentences, no redundant words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds useful behavioral context. Every clause contributes to selecting and invoking the 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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no param-level descriptions, this description is too thin. It omits required scan_id meaning, timeout_s behavior, and return/pagination details. An agent would need additional inference to call this tool confidently in all modes.

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. It adds meaning for 'after' via the cursor endpoint and for wait_for_done/poll_s via the polling behavior, but it says nothing about the required scan_id, timeout_s, or the exact semantics of poll_s beyond the default cadence. This leaves a substantial portion of the input schema unexplained.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a run's event log'), and includes the endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent_runs, which list runs rather than reading their event logs. Even without naming a sibling, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage is implied by the description: use this to read run events, with wait_for_done for polling. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. The description provides clear context but no exclusions or alternative routing.

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