runtime_smoke_mark_event_cursor

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds limited behavioral detail. It describes the output as a compact cursor token, providing some context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose any other behaviors like side effects or limitations.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that delivers the core purpose immediately. While efficient, it could be slightly expanded to cover parameters without losing conciseness.

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?

Given five parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of optional parameters or the format of the returned cursor token, leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation.

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% and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. The agent receives no guidance on the meaning or usage of 'run_id', 'agent_mode', 'include_debug_output', 'include_trace_source', or 'include_app_diagnostics'.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and specifies the resource as 'compact cursor token for the current durable run event position.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mark_trace_cursor' by focusing on durable run events.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it. The description only states what it does without usage context.

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