recent_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations cannot: MCP-caused events are suppressed unless includeMcp is set, and the tool is a sequence-number-based polling stream that echoes back a lastSeq cursor. That is meaningful operational context beyond structured fields.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the filtering caveat and the cursor instruction. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description proactively discloses the return cursor (lastSeq) and the polling loop, which is the key thing an agent needs to consume this tool correctly. Remaining gaps – limit/pagination behavior and ordering guarantees – are minor for a read-only event feed backed by annotations.

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 only 20% (only 'backend' is documented in the schema), so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains the includeMcp toggle and the since cursor semantics, and its event list maps onto the types enum values (sprite_change, command, fg_color, bg_color). It leaves limit and the precise meaning of site_change unexplained, keeping it below a 5.

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 verb and resource – it returns the event stream of what happened in Aseprite since a sequence number, and enumerates the event categories (sprite changes, undo/redo, layer/frame switches, commands, colors). That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with plausibly overlapping siblings like status, app_state, or get_sprite_info, so it stops short of a 5.

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: 'Live mode' and the polling instruction ('Pass the returned lastSeq as since next time') tell the agent how to drive the tool iteratively, which is genuinely useful. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no sibling alternatives are named (e.g. app_state for a snapshot vs this for an incremental stream).

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