ws_subscribe_trigger

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not mention timeout behavior (despite a timeout parameter), blocking nature, or what happens on timeout/error. The return value 'trigger context' is left undefined.

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 short and includes a helpful example, but it omits critical details about parameters and behavior. It could be more efficient by integrating parameter explanations.

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 waits for an event and has an output schema (not shown), the description should explain timeout behavior, return value details, and how to cancel. It only mentions trigger context, leaving major gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must document parameters. It only provides an example for the trigger object, without detailing its structure or acceptable fields. The timeout parameter is completely ignored.

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 waits for a HA trigger to fire and returns the context. It distinguishes from other ws tools like ws_listen_events by focusing on triggers, but could be more explicit about what constitutes a trigger.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ws_listen_state_changes or ws_listen_events. It does not state prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer use cases from the example.

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