Subscribe to events

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds context that starting a recording creates a buffer and that events are then read with get_recent_events. While it does not explicitly detail the subscription lifecycle (such as how to stop with unsubscribe_events), the behavioral overview is solid and does not contradict the annotations.

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 a bit long with the event type list, but every sentence earns its place: it starts with a memorable hook, then states the action, buffer usage, exclusions, and enumerates available types. The structure is front-loaded and understandable.

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 output schema and moderate parameter count, the description covers the core use case, the event types, and the interaction with get_recent_events. It does not discuss how to stop the subscription or buffer limits, but the sibling tool unsubscribe_events is present and the annotations cover safety.

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 schema already covers all parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the event type enumeration and explains the buffer concept, but it does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 with a specific verb ('start recording real-time activity') and resource ('server live activity'), and distinguishes it from related tools by naming create_event and schedule_message as alternatives. It also links to the companion read tool get_recent_events, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool ('Use this to observe what is going on now') and when not to ('It is not for scheduled community events (create_event) or timed messages (schedule_message)'). It also directs the user to the companion tool get_recent_events for reading the buffered events, providing clear usage context.

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