Watch OrcaSlicer events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful trait that the observation window is bounded and short, but omits whether the call blocks, what an event payload looks like, and what happens when no events occur during the window.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the concrete event taxonomy; nothing is redundant. The parenthetical examples and the event list are slightly duplicative but both earn their place for an observability tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description bears more burden for describing return shape; it names event types but says nothing about payload structure, ordering, or empty-result behavior. It is adequate to decide to call the tool, but not to know what will come back.

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% for the single `seconds` parameter, so the description must compensate. "for a few seconds" and "bounded window" loosely tie the parameter to observation duration, but units, default of 10, and valid ranges are left to the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Listen to OrcaSlicer's live events") and enumerates the event families it surfaces (slice.*, config.changed, project.opened), which makes it distinguishable from point-in-time siblings like get_job_status. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating the contrast 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?

"for a few seconds" and "over a bounded window" imply this is a short, time-limited wait rather than a persistent subscription, which is useful usage context. However, there is no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no pointer to polling alternatives such as get_job_status or get_job_status-style siblings.

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