nido_events

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

With no annotations, the description does substantial work: it discloses that subscriptions are opt-in and session-scoped, that mute retains filters while unsubscribe discards them, and critically that notifications carry only an invalidated URI (no payload). That last point is essential behavioral information for an agent deciding how to consume events. It does not discuss persistence across sessions or delivery guarantees, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool controls, then action semantics, then the default state, then where to read health. No sentence is redundant and the ordering follows the agent's decision path.

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?

For a 3-parameter session-scoped subscription tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: default behavior, action distinctions, and notification payload shape. The gaps are the undocumented parameter and any note on subscription lifetime or error behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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 67%, with the uri and uri_filter parameters already documented and one parameter undocumented. The description adds some semantic context — that subscriptions are per-VM-URI or core resource, and that mute/unmute retain filters — but does not explain the undocumented parameter or clarify the relationship between the two URI parameters. Adequate but reliant on the schema.

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 states a specific verb+resource: subscribe/mute/unsubscribe to event streams scoped to this MCP session, with URI or core resource granularity. It is clearly distinct from the sibling resource-management tools (nido_vm, nido_template, etc.). However, the tool name 'nido_events' alone does not convey the subscription-management intent, so the description carries the load well but without naming sibling differentiation explicitly.

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?

It gives clear operational guidance: default is no notifications, mute/unmute preserves filters while unsubscribe removes them, and status/health lives at nido://system/events. This tells the agent which action to pick and where to look for diagnostics. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or guidance on choosing between kinds values, but the action-selection semantics are well covered.

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