opencode_events_poll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the collection window behavior (up to maxEvents within the duration), hinting at a bounded/blocking poll, but never states that this is a read-only operation, whether it blocks the caller, or what happens on timeout.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the scope behavior is front-loaded. Efficient and on-point.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the returned event shape and blocking semantics. It only gestures at the collection window, leaving the return/behavior contract thin for a 4-param polling tool.

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 75% and three of four params already have schema descriptions; the only undocumented one is the scope enum. The description restates the scope choice and the maxEvents/duration relationship without adding format or default detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (poll) and resource (project events) plus an explicit scope option (global). No sibling in the list polls events, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated, keeping it short of a 5.

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 implies when to use the default (project) vs the global scope, but never states a when-to-use condition against alternatives or prerequisites. Usage is only implied.

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