bowire.subscribe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the non-obvious behavior: frames are buffered until the sample window elapses and returned as raw strings for the agent to decode. It omits auth requirements, error behavior for non-streaming methods, and whether the call blocks, so it falls short of full transparency.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and load-bearing: the first defines the operation and scope, the second defines the return format. No filler or repetition.

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 7-parameter streaming tool with no annotations and no output schema, the return-shape note is valuable, but routing guidance against bowire.invoke and failure/reconnection behavior are missing, leaving real gaps for an agent to fill by inference.

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%, so all 7 parameters are already documented in the schema (including durationMs's clamp to MaxSubscribeMs). The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Subscribe to a streaming method', and enumerates the protocol shapes (server-streaming, SSE, MQTT topic, websocket). This distinguishes it from a unary call like bowire.invoke, though it never names a sibling 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?

The mention of streaming protocols and a sample window implies the use case (consuming streaming endpoints), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives such as bowire.invoke or bowire.network.get.

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