subscribe_signals

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

Annotations are all false, offering minimal safety profile, but the description adds meaningful context: persistent monitoring, retrieval via get_signal_events, and the run_interactive prerequisite. It does not disclose unsubscribe behavior or lifecycle, but the persistent nature is clearly stated.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds functional value (purpose, retrieval, alternative/prerequisite), with no filler.

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 the main workflow: how to subscribe, how to retrieve events, when to use an alternative, and a prerequisite. However, it doesn't describe any return value or unsubscription process, which could be useful but is not critical given the tool's relative simplicity and schema coverage.

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?

Input schema has descriptions for both params (100% coverage), so the baseline is met. The description adds no additional 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?

Clearly states 'Subscribe to signals on a node for persistent monitoring,' identifying the specific action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with send_key_sequence and referencing get_signal_events for retrieval.

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?

Explicitly says 'For single-sequence monitoring, prefer send_key_sequence with collectSignals,' providing an alternative for a different use case. Also states 'Requires run_interactive,' giving a prerequisite. This is strong guidance for when to use this tool.

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