maltego_subscribe_events

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

Annotations declare the tool is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent. The description adds key behavioral details: it turns on live mode and buffering, returns a subscription id, and clarifies that MCP stdio cannot push events, so polling is required. No contradiction with 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 four sentences. It front-loads the main purpose, then explains implications, optionality, and return value. Every sentence earns its place 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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, mechanism, and context. It explains the need for polling and the optional nature of real-time mode, which is complete for a subscribe 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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Schema coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 enables real-time investigation mode and returns a subscription ID. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining that events must be polled via maltego_get_recent_events because MCP stdio cannot push.

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 this tool (to enable real-time mode) and that polling is required. It notes that real-time mode is optional and does not change .mtgx behavior, implying it can be skipped if not needed. It references the alternative poll tool.

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