ws_send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about what happens if the connection is closed or unknown, whether the call blocks until the frame is flushed, or how a JSON payload must be formatted/serialized. For a write-side network operation with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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 and the key distinction (text vs JSON frame) surfaced immediately. It is perhaps slightly too terse for a network mutation, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits the failure/error behavior and the connection-lifecycle dependency, which an agent calling a send operation would benefit from knowing.

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 description coverage is 100%: both 'message' (payload) and 'connectionId' (from ws_connect) are documented in the schema. The description adds no format, size, or framing detail beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('a text or JSON frame down a WebSocket connection'), which is clearly distinct from ws_read, ws_close, and ws_connect in the sibling list. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing rather than being told.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no prerequisites stated in the description. The requirement for a live connection is only inferable from the schema's 'ID returned by ws_connect' text, not from the description itself.

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