npm-package-ws-has-241560546-weekly-downloads-but-sdk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the permanent deallocation of the session_id, the sequence (send frame, wait for handshake, remove), and the return of a telemetry snapshot. No contradictions.

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 concise with three sentences: first states the action, second provides usage guidance, third adds a critical behavioral trait. No unnecessary words, well front-loaded.

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 the schema coverage and presence of output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: core behavior, permanent deallocation, usage constraints, and return value. It is complete for a close operation.

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%, and the schema already describes all three parameters with defaults and constraints. The description does not add new semantic details beyond the schema, so 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 the action: sends a WebSocket close frame, waits for server handshake, removes session, and returns telemetry. It distinguishes from sibling tools (open, send, drain, inspect) by focusing specifically on closing a session.

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 ('when a session is no longer needed') and when not to use ('Do NOT use to temporarily pause a session'), with a clear reason (session_id is permanently deallocated).

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions non-real-time and that frames are annotated, but does not clarify if draining clears the buffer or other side effects like session state changes. This is partially informative but leaves some ambiguity.

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, both front-loaded with key information. No wasted words.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 params) and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and basic behavior. It lacks details on return format but the output schema compensates. Could mention error conditions or session validity but overall sufficient.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so 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 tool returns buffered inbound frames with entropy and validation info. It uses a specific verb-resource structure and contrasts with real-time streaming, distinguishing it from siblings like open_websocket_session.

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 says 'Use to poll for incoming messages without holding a blocking connection' and warns 'Do NOT use as a real-time streaming mechanism', providing clear when-to and when-not-to guidance.

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

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 implies read-only behavior by describing telemetry retrieval but does not explicitly state lack of side effects, required permissions, or behavior for invalid sessions. It does mention 'real-time' but lacks detail on rate limits or data staleness. Adequate but not thorough.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the outputs, the second clarifies use cases, and the third provides a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description complements it by listing key telemetry measures. It covers diagnostic and liveness verification use cases, including a warning about misuse. For a simple inspection tool with one input, this is fully sufficient.

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?

There is only one parameter (session_id) with 100% schema coverage. The schema already describes it as a 32-character session id. The tool description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, so 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 starts with a specific verb 'Returns' and lists concrete telemetry items (connection state, frame counts, entropy, schema violation rate, uptime). It clearly identifies the tool's function and is distinct from sibling tools which perform close, drain, open, and send operations.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'diagnose whether a stream is diverging from its expected schema' and 'verify a session is still alive before sending'. It also provides a clear negative directive: 'Do NOT use as the primary liveness check in a tight loop.' This helps the agent choose correctly.

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

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 that the connection is persistent, registers in a stateful registry, returns a session_id, and warns against improper reconnection. This adds meaningful behavioral context, though it could mention failure behavior or resource cleanup implications, but it covers the essential traits.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by usage context and an exclusion. Every sentence contributes value with no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description states the return of a session_id, distinguishes from reconnecting, and clearly situates the tool among siblings. For an open-connection tool, this is complete and actionable.

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 already covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 the tool 'Establishes a persistent WebSocket connection to a target URL and registers it in the stateful session registry,' using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting it returns a session_id for subsequent operations and explicitly contrasts with reconnecting an existing session.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use when an agent needs to initiate a long-lived connection before sending or receiving frames' and 'Do NOT use to reconnect an already-open session -- call close_websocket_session first, or use the session_id of an existing session.' This names an alternative tool and gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses that it returns an entropy delta, sends a single frame, and fails if session invalid. Missing details on side effects or performance, but adequate for a send operation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action and return value. No extra words. Concisely covers usage, constraints, and failure modes.

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 that output schema exists, description need not detail returns. It covers input constraints, usage patterns, and failure conditions. Complete for agent decision-making.

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% (baseline 3). The description adds value by specifying that payload for binary frames should be hex-encoded and frame_type set to 'binary'. This guidance goes beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool sends a single text or binary frame and returns the Shannon entropy delta. It distinguishes itself from siblings (open, close, drain, inspect) by focusing on sending data over an existing session.

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 says when to use: request-response patterns or publishing commands. Also tells when not to use: not for bulk sequences, call once per frame. Failure conditions are noted: session must exist and be in OPEN state.

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