get_realtime_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does well by indicating a read-only monitoring behavior and listing observable outputs: active subscriptions, connection status, event statistics, and errors. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or exact response shape, but those are not critical for this zero-parameter status 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 is compact and front-loaded: purpose, output summary, and usage guidance in three short segments with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a no-parameter status tool, this is adequately complete: it explains what the tool does, what it reports, and when to use it. The absence of annotations and an output schema leaves some room for more detail about the exact response format, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 effectively 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description omits parameter details because none are needed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get status of all real-time WebSocket subscriptions,' and enumerates exactly what it shows. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling subscribe/unsubscribe tools.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this to monitor the health of real-time data feeds,' providing clear usage context. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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