export_websocket_session_raw

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 mentions 'Export' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format is, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves data retrieval or processing.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resource without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and two parameters, the description is too minimal—it lacks context on usage, parameters, and behavior, making it incomplete for effective tool invocation despite the output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'request_id' refers to (e.g., an identifier for a WebSocket session) or what 'include_normalized' does (e.g., whether it adds processed data to the raw export). This results in inadequate parameter clarification.

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 ('Export') and the resource ('raw uploaded WebSocket session entry and raw frame list'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_websocket_session' or 'list_websocket_sessions', which might retrieve similar data in different formats or scopes, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_websocket_session' and 'analyze_websocket_session', it's unclear if this is for raw data export versus processed analysis or retrieval, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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