Read remote events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the notion of incremental sequence filtering, which hints at pagination behavior, but fails to disclose ordering, default behavior, or response format. The added value beyond annotations is modest, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence with no wasted words, and it front-loads the primary action. However, it is terse to the point of omitting important context, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and a minimal description, critical information is missing: the return value shape, default values, and interplay between filters. The description only covers the sequence filtering concept, leaving users to guess other behavior. This is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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% (clientId has a description). The description's reference to 'incremental sequence filtering' clarifies the purpose of sinceSequence, but it leaves limit, method, and nameContains unexplained. With 5 optional parameters and low schema coverage, the description does not compensate enough, resulting in a score of 2.

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 'Read locally captured remote calls with incremental sequence filtering' clearly states the verb (read) and resource (locally captured remote calls), adding scope with sequence filtering. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like remote_monitor or replay_remote_event, though it does not explicitly call out alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. There is no mention of requirements, preconditions, or alternatives. The phrase 'locally captured' implies it works after capture, but this is not explicit.

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