repair_websocket_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Backfill' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't specify whether this is destructive, requires permissions, has side effects, or how it interacts with existing data. The mention of 'raw frames' adds some context, but key behavioral traits are missing.

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 gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity and front-loads the core purpose effectively.

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 there's an output schema (which handles return values) and only 2 parameters, the description is somewhat complete for a basic tool. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more context about behavioral implications and usage scenarios to be fully complete.

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 description doesn't mention any parameters, while the schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. Since schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but doesn't explain what 'max_rows' or 'dry_run' mean in this context. The baseline is 3 because there are only 2 parameters, but the description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 ('Backfill') and target resource ('missing WebSocket message fields from raw frames'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_websocket_messages' or 'tail_websocket_messages', which prevents 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 like 'search_websocket_messages' or 'tail_websocket_messages', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for when backfilling is appropriate. It only states what the tool does, not when to use it.

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