openclaw_sessions_subscribe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical limitation that the MCP runs over stdio so events cannot stream back, but does not mention failure behavior or return value specifics. Still, the main behavioral trait is well communicated.

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 sentences with no fluff. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the crucial caveat. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description lacks info on return values (e.g., confirmation object, error details). However, the core purpose and usage limitation are sufficiently covered for a simple subscription tool. Could be slightly more 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter (instance). The description repeats the parameter name but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the action ('Subscribe') and the resource ('session lifecycle events (sessions.changed)'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like openclaw_sessions_unsubscribe. It also names the underlying function wrapped.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (to confirm subscription acceptance) and when not (since deltas won't stream back in Claude Code due to stdio limitation), providing clear context for agent decision-making.

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