列出实时订阅

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

With no annotations provided the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose what each listed subscription reports (filter, matched count, buffer count, cursor), which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It stops short of stating read-only semantics, whether subscriptions are live/active, or whether the listing is paginated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every clause names a concrete returned attribute and nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the enumeration of returned fields is the right thing to include and partially compensates. But with no annotations and no usage guidance, an agent still lacks the safety profile and the selection criteria needed to confidently choose this tool over its events_* siblings.

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% and the single parameter (includeHidden) is fully documented in the schema with a default. The description adds nothing about the hidden/internal-subscription distinction, so the schema does all the work — baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('列出所有订阅') and even enumerates the fields surfaced for each subscription (filter conditions, matched count, buffered count, cursor). It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like events_read or events_subscribe, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no naming of alternatives such as events_read or events_unsubscribe. The description only says what it returns, leaving selection among the four events_* siblings entirely to inference.

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