list_active_websocket_sessions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions sessions are 'inferred from latest captured frames', hinting at data source limitations, but doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, side effects, or response format. More detail is needed for a mutation-free tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a useful qualifier about inference, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and data source but lacks parameter guidance, behavioral context, and sibling differentiation. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but more detail is needed for full understanding.

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 but adds no parameter-specific information. It implies recency ('recently active') which loosely relates to 'active_within_seconds', but doesn't explain parameters like 'limit', 'domain', or 'include_closing'. Baseline 3 is given as the schema itself provides structure, but the description adds minimal value.

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 ('List') and resource ('recently active WebSocket sessions'), with additional context about how sessions are inferred ('from latest captured frames'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_websocket_sessions' by specifying 'active' sessions, though the distinction could be more explicit.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_websocket_sessions' or 'analyze_websocket_session'. The description implies it's for recent activity, but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases compared to siblings.

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