a2a_send_task_subscribe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'streaming' and 'subscribe to updates', hinting at real-time behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'updates' entail (e.g., format, frequency). For a mutation tool with streaming, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise with a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place, avoiding redundancy and waste, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 complexity of a streaming mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, update formats, error conditions, or operational constraints, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to invoke it correctly in context.

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 the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or use cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 action ('send a task and subscribe to updates') and resource ('task'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'a2a_send_task', which likely sends a task without subscribing, leaving some ambiguity about sibling distinction.

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, such as 'a2a_send_task' for non-streaming tasks or 'a2a_get_task' for retrieving task status. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage, relying solely on the tool name for implicit understanding.

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