aiworkhub_manager_loop_events

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares it is safe, but the description adds real behavioral detail: seq > after_seq filtering, limit-bounded results, and the important caveat that `partial` is display-only and never persisted or sent to a model. It does not explain ordering or what signals end-of-stream, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the read scope and the filter semantics. Every sentence carries information (bounded read, seq filter, partial semantics) and the caveat is stated compactly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained. The description covers the key non-obvious behavior (after_seq filtering, bounding, display-only partial) but leaves cursor exhaustion/ordering unspecified, a minor gap for a polling tool.

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 explains after_seq ('seq greater than after_seq') and limit ('bounded to limit'), and session_id is self-evident from the name, but it gives no defaults or bounds for limit/after_seq, so the compensation is partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('bounded session events') and the access mode ('MANAGER READ'), plus the intended consumer pattern ('incremental client polling'). It is distinguishable from sibling loop_status/loop_continue, though it never names an alternative directly.

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?

'For incremental client polling' implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs loop_status, loop_restore, or dashboard session tools, and no stated exclusions or preconditions. Usage has to be inferred from the polling hint.

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