event_emit

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint: false and openWorldHint: false. The description adds that events are received in real time via SSE stream, providing behavioral context beyond the structured fields. No contradiction found.

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 concise (about 6 lines), front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidelines, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simplicity, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameters adequately. It mentions the SSE stream. However, it lacks details on error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., required subscriptions), but the output schema likely explains return values.

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 baseline is 3. The description's Args section largely mirrors the schema's parameter descriptions, adding no significant new meaning beyond examples already present in the schema. Thus, it does not improve upon 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 action: 'Emit a custom event to the Artel event bus.' It is specific with a verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from all sibling tools (none are event-related).

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 explains when to use the tool: 'for pub/sub signaling between agents,' with examples like announcing completions and progress updates. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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