tail_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key blocking behavior, timeout semantics, and return of matched events. It does not explicitly state what happens when maxWaitMs elapses with no matching event (empty list vs. null vs. error), which is a meaningful ambiguity.

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 definition is compact and well-structured: the core blocking behavior is front-loaded, followed by use-case guidance, examples, and defaults. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary 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?

Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, parameters, and alternative usage well. The only notable gap is the unspecified timeout result, which prevents it from being fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents kinds, limit, and maxWaitMs. The description adds helpful context like runtime-signal examples and the default/max wait time, but it mostly restates what the schema already provides.

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 identifies a specific behavior (long-poll blocking) and a specific resource (events matching `kinds`). It also distinguishes itself from the more obvious sibling, get_event_log, by explicitly saying this tool avoids polling.

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?

It states exactly when to use the tool: to wait for runtime signals like route changes or build completion. It also names the polling alternative (get_event_log) and frames this tool as the non-polling option, giving an agent clear selection guidance.

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