subscribe_to_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions real-time events and JSON-RPC notifications, but lacks critical details: whether this establishes a persistent connection, authentication requirements, rate limits, how events are delivered, or what happens if the session ends. For a subscription tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that convey core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though it could be more structured by separating subscription mechanics from delivery format. No wasted words, but could benefit from slightly more detail given the tool's complexity.

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's complexity (real-time subscription), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after subscription, how events are received, error conditions, or relationship to other event tools. For a subscription mechanism in a gaming/DM system, this leaves too many unknowns.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description doesn't mention either parameter ('topics' or 'sessionId'), leaving their purpose and usage completely unexplained. However, since there are only 2 parameters and one is optional, the baseline is 3 for minimal viability, though the description adds no value beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Subscribe to real-time events on world or combat topics' specifies the verb (subscribe), resource (events), and topic scope (world/combat). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from its sibling 'unsubscribe_from_events' or other event-related tools, preventing a perfect score.

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. It mentions 'Events sent as JSON-RPC notifications' but doesn't explain when subscription is appropriate, what happens after subscribing, or how it relates to tools like 'poll_events' or 'get_event_history' in the sibling list.

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