presence_list_subscriptions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read-only listing of active subscriptions, which is non-destructive. It could mention that it is safe and has no side effects, but the current text is sufficient for a simple diagnostic tool.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence defines the purpose, and the second adds a practical use case. No wasted words, and the important information is front-loaded.

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 no parameters and an output schema (implied), the description fully explains the tool's function and its diagnostic value. It is complete for a simple listing operation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to add parameter-specific guidance.

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 'List active presence subscriptions (the presence hash table)' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'presence_cleanup' and 'pua_list_publications' by focusing on monitoring subscriptions.

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 explicit context: 'Useful for BLF diagnosis: if a watcher's key phone button doesn't update, this table shows whether OpenSIPS sees the subscription.' It implies when to use but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.

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