Subscribe to events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it usefully discloses that this is an asynchronous push that lands in an event log read by get_events. It omits whether the subscription is persistent, whether an active bridge/channel connection is required, and whether a prior subscription is replaced.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the destination and read path. No redundant restatement of the title.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and result location adequately. It leaves gaps around connection prerequisites, subscription lifetime, and the unsubscribe counterpart that an agent would want before invoking.

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 coverage is 0% and the array items have no enum, but the description supplies two concrete event-name values, partially documenting the required 'events' parameter. It does not clarify accepted values exhaustively or whether multiple subscriptions merge, so it adds only moderate value over the bare schema.

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?

Specific verb ('Start pushing') plus resource ('Figjam events') with concrete examples (selectionchange, documentchange) and the destination ('the bridge'). It routes the agent to the sibling get_events for reading results, so it is distinguishable without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied: call this to begin receiving events, and read them via get_events. However, it never names the counterpart unsubscribe_events or states when subscribing is unnecessary or how the subscription persists, so the when/when-not guidance is only partially present.

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