ws_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "List" implies a non-destructive read, but it does not state whether the result is scoped to this client/session, whether closed or stale connections are excluded, or what the return shape is (bare array of IDs vs objects).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema listing tool the description is minimally viable — it names the returned artifact. But with no annotations and no output schema, it should say what a caller does with the IDs (e.g., pass to ws_read/ws_send) and whether the list is per-client or global.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Nothing in the text wrongly implies optional filtering.

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?

"List active socket connection IDs" gives a specific verb (list) and resource (active socket connections), which cleanly separates it from the sibling action tools ws_connect, ws_send, ws_read and ws_close. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or stating that the returned IDs are the handles those tools consume, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is offered: nothing says to call this before ws_send/ws_read/ws_close to obtain a valid connection ID, nor whether it is needed after ws_connect. An agent must infer the workflow from sibling names alone.

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