event_emit

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a write operation with no destruction. The description adds that events are emitted in real-time via SSE stream, but does not detail if the call is fire-and-forget, return behavior, or potential side effects like event delivery guarantees.

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 succinct with 5 sentences and a clear Args section. It front-loads the main purpose. Minor improvement could be removing redundant phrasing ('in real time' already in purpose).

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?

The description covers parameters well but misses output behavior (despite having an output schema) and does not mention event bus constraints like message size limits or persistence. Siblings are varied but this tool is unique, so no confusion.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully documents both parameters with examples and dot-separated format for event_type and arbitrary JSON for payload. This adds substantial 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 emits custom events to the Artel event bus for pub/sub signaling. It distinguishes itself from siblings (which are mostly CRUD for tasks, memory, agents) by being unique in purpose.

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 explicitly says 'Use for pub/sub signaling between agents' and provides concrete use cases like announcing completions and progress updates. It does not list when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear given no other event tool exists.

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