get_websocket_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details and messages, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' include. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get WebSocket session details and messages by request ID') earns its place by specifying key elements, making it appropriately sized and structured.

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, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, behavior, and parameter semantics, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a retrieval tool.

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 mentions 'by request ID', which maps to the 'request_id' parameter, and 'messages', which relates to 'include_messages'. However, it doesn't explain parameter meanings beyond this basic mapping, such as what 'request_id' refers to or the implications of 'include_messages'. With low coverage, the description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate.

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's purpose: 'Get WebSocket session details and messages by request ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('WebSocket session details and messages'), and key identifier ('by request ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_websocket_sessions' or 'analyze_websocket_session', which would require a 5.

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. It doesn't mention siblings like 'list_websocket_sessions' for listing sessions or 'analyze_websocket_session' for analysis, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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