read_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the increasing-order behavior and the fact that the number of events is capped, which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose whether reading consumes events, how pagination works, or the exact nature of the persisted stream.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the action and the ordering, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified, so conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, but for what it says, there is zero waste.

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?

With three parameters, no parameter descriptions in the schema, and no output schema, this tool requires more context. The description omits critical usage details: how to obtain relayRunId, the meaning and effect of afterSequence, how the limit is applied, and what the returned events look like. It is far from complete for an agent to call correctly without additional context or trial-and-error.

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 for the three parameters (limit, relayRunId, afterSequence). It fails to explain any of them. The only hint is 'events have a limit,' which loosely relates to the limit parameter but is not explicit. No mention of what relayRunId identifies or how afterSequence controls incremental reading.

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 (read), the resource (persisted Cursor SDK stream events), and the ordering (in increasing sequence number). This is specific and distinct from the sibling tools like get_run (run state) or list_runs (list of runs), so an agent can tell it apart.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used after starting a run or polling for streamed events, nor does it exclude cases where get_run or wait_run would be more appropriate. No alternatives are referenced.

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