event_emit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states events are emitted to the bus and received in real-time by other agents, but does not disclose potential side effects, persistence, size limits, or error behavior. Adequate for a simple emit but lacks depth.

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 with a clear structure: purpose sentence, usage context, then 'Args' section. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. Slightly verbose with 'across the fleet' but still efficient.

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 simple tool (2 params, 100% coverage, output schema present), the description covers key aspects: purpose, usage, parameters. It doesn't address error handling or guarantees, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an emit tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds examples and explains event_type format (dot-separated), but this is marginal beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a custom event to the Artel event bus, using specific verb 'emit' and resource 'event bus'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are unrelated (agents, feeds, memory, etc.).

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 usage context: 'Use for pub/sub signaling between agents' and gives examples like announcing completions or triggering coordinated action. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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