events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only lists operation names and does not reveal whether publish persists events, whether poll consumes them, whether subscribe creates a durable subscription, or what ordering and acknowledgement guarantees exist.

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 sentence is concise and front-loaded with the resource, containing no wasteful phrasing. However, for an eight-parameter tool with no annotations, this brevity borders on under-specification and omits operation-critical detail.

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?

Although an output schema reduces the need to document return values, the description is still too sparse for a stateful event bus with required `agent_name`, optional `payload`, and sequence-based polling fields. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct invocation without guessing action values or parameter groupings.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the text needed to explain the eight parameters, but it only hints at `action` values via 'publish, poll, subscribe'. Parameters such as `since_seq`, `event_types`, `correlation_id`, and `limit` are not linked to any operation mode or given a semantic role.

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 identifies the resource ('Event bus') and names three concrete operations: publish, poll, and subscribe. This is clear and distinguishes the tool from unrelated siblings, though it does not explicitly state that the required `action` parameter selects among these operations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than a sibling, nor when to choose publish versus poll versus subscribe. The event-bus framing implies a general use case, but the agent is left to infer the trigger conditions and alternatives.

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