search_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 but offers minimal information. It mentions searching by keyword and frame filters but doesn't describe what the search returns, whether it's paginated, what permissions are needed, or any rate limits. For a search tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's core function. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is incomplete. While the output schema may document return values, the description doesn't address key behavioral aspects like search scope, result format, or usage context. It's minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps for a search operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 9 parameters, the description fails to compensate for this gap. It mentions 'keyword and precise frame filters' which hints at some parameters (keyword, direction, message_type, opcode, etc.) but doesn't explain what these filters mean, their valid values, or how they interact. The description adds minimal value beyond what's already implied by parameter names.

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 as searching WebSocket messages with keyword and frame filters, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_requests' or 'tail_websocket_messages', which appear to be related search/filtering operations.

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 sibling tools like 'search_requests', 'tail_websocket_messages', and 'list_websocket_sessions' available, there's no indication of when this specific search tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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