debug_get_pending_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful context with 'since last call', implying a stateful, incremental retrieval. However, it does not clarify whether events are consumed/drained, whether repeated calls return the same events, or whether there are side effects.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object, then adds the key temporal constraint, which is ideal for a simple tool.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is serviceable: it indicates what is returned and the polling semantics. But with no output schema and no sibling differentiation, an agent may not know how this differs from debug_get_output or whether calling it has side effects on the event queue.

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 100%, so the single session_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('pending debug events'), and a defining scope ('since last call'). It conveys what the tool does and is more than a restatement of the name, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like debug_get_output.

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 given about when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as debug_get_output or debug_get_threads. The phrase 'since last call' implies a polling pattern, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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