trigger_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action and effect (push realtime messages) but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, authorization requirements, or failure behavior. The socketId exclusion is only in the schema, not the description.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with a well-covered schema, but there is no annotation and no output schema. The description covers basic purpose and use but lacks details about success/failure responses, rate limits, or relationship to sibling batch tool, making it minimally 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 description coverage is 100%: every parameter (data, event, channel, socketId) has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is 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 clearly states 'Send an event to one or more Pusher channels' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like trigger_batch_events (which handles multiple events) and list_channels by focusing on sending a single event to channels.

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 says 'Use this to push realtime messages to connected clients,' providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternatives like trigger_batch_events, so it lacks exclusions but gives a definite scenario.

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