xlayer_subscribe

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

The [L:READ] tag indicates a read operation, which adds some behavioral context. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose other behaviors such as persistence effects, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is too minimal to fully inform the agent.

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 very concise, consisting of a single line with key tags and a prerequisite note. It is front-loaded with helpful categorization. While short, it conveys essential metadata efficiently without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Despite the high schema coverage, the description lacks completeness for the tool's overall purpose. It does not explain the subscription behavior, return values (no output schema), or how it integrates with the 'agent_catalog' prerequisite. A 3-param tool needs more context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains the parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3 as per the rubric for high coverage.

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 uses tags like [L:READ] and CAT:[链上] but does not clearly state the tool's action. The name 'subscribe' suggests subscription functionality, but the description fails to explain what is being subscribed to or how it works. It is vague and requires inference.

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 includes '请先调用 agent_catalog', which provides a prerequisite ordering instruction. However, it does not compare this tool to siblings or clarify when to use it versus other tools, leaving the agent without explicit usage context.

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