create_realtime_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action (creates a connection), the type of events received, and the return of a connection ID. However, it does not mention lifecycle details like needing to close the connection, authentication, or async behavior. This adds some value but is not rich behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place. It is concise and informative without 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return value. It could be improved by mentioning that the connection ID is needed for disconnect_realtime and any prerequisites, but given its simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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 has one parameter (debug) with full coverage and description. The tool description does not mention the parameter or add additional meaning, but per rubric with >80% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action: creates a Socket.io connection for receiving real-time events, listing example event types (new messages, typing indicators). It also mentions the return value (connection ID), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like disconnect_realtime and send_typing_indicator.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for establishing a real-time event stream. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear that this is the tool to use when you want to receive events. Sibling tools imply complementary usage (e.g., disconnect_realtime for closing).

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