ws_subscribe_trigger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it 'waits' and 'returns trigger context', but does not mention potential blocking, timeout handling, or what happens if the trigger never fires. The timeout parameter is in schema but not explained behaviorally.

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 only two sentences plus an example, which is efficient and front-loaded. It wastes no words, though the example could be integrated more tightly. Overall, it is appropriately concise.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, return values are not needed, but the description still misses usage guidance and behavioral details. With 0% schema coverage, it should explain parameter semantics more thoroughly. It is not complete enough for an agent to use confidently.

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 0%, meaning the description adds no parameter details beyond the schema. While the example shows a sample trigger object, it does not explain the structure or required fields. The timeout parameter is not mentioned at all. The description fails to compensate for low coverage.

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 'Wait for a HA trigger to fire' and specifies the action of waiting and returning trigger context. It provides an example which clarifies the resource. Among siblings like ws_listen_events and ws_listen_state_changes, this tool is uniquely defined by its trigger-based waiting semantics.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that it is a long-polling operation that may block, or compare to streaming state changes via ws_listen_state_changes. The description lacks context on appropriate scenarios.

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