Replay retained DSH Relay notifications

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: the projection is bounded and in-process, and cursor gaps produce explicit resynchronization metadata. This adds substantive context without contradicting the annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key behavioral nuance. Every clause contributes semantic value with no filler.

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?

The output schema covers return shape, annotations cover safety, and the description explains the main cursor behavior. The only notable gap is the behavior when cursor is omitted, which is not addressed in the description or schema descriptions.

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 carry cursor meaning. It does so by explaining that reads happen 'after a cursor' and that gaps trigger resynchronization metadata. It does not explain initial-cursor omission behavior, but the single optional parameter is otherwise well contextualized.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('bounded in-process notification projection'), and clearly scopes the operation with cursor semantics. This distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools and from any generic 'list notifications' operation.

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 makes the usage context clear: read notifications after a cursor, with specific resynchronization behavior on cursor gaps. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use or alternatives, but no close sibling alternative exists among the provided tools.

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