subscribe_houdini_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does add a meaningful detail: omitting 'types' subscribes to all supported events. However, it lacks other important behavioral context such as whether subscriptions are additive or replace existing ones, whether there are side effects, or why 'ctx' is required. This is insufficient for a subscription tool with no annotation support.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is efficient with no wasted words. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, but that is more of a completeness issue than a conciseness issue.

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?

This is a subscription tool with two parameters and no output schema, but the description is minimal. It does not explain the event system, how subscriptions are managed, or how this relates to sibling tools like 'unsubscribe_houdini_events' and 'get_houdini_events'. The description is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's role and side effects.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It explains the behavior of 'types' (when omitted, all events are subscribed), which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the required 'ctx' parameter at all, nor does it specify the format or accepted values for 'types'. The description only partially covers the parameters.

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 states the tool's function: subscribing to event types. It uses a specific verb ('subscribe') and resource ('houdini_events'), and the added detail about omitting types to subscribe to all events further clarifies scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'unsubscribe_houdini_events' and 'get_houdini_events'.

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 usage by stating the action and the optional 'types' parameter, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no reference to 'unsubscribe_houdini_events' for stopping subscriptions or 'get_houdini_events' for listing events, so the guidance is only implied.

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