tail_websocket_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'tail' and 'seq cursor', hinting at streaming or paginated behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if it streams real-time data, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when the session ends. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Tail WebSocket messages') and includes the key constraint ('for one session using seq cursor'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for its brevity.

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 complexity (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter usage, or relationship to siblings. While the output schema might cover return values, the description lacks essential context for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotation support, making it inadequate for informed use.

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 only references 'seq cursor' (likely related to 'after_seq'), ignoring the other 5 parameters (request_id, direction, message_type, include_raw, limit). No additional meaning is provided for any parameter, leaving semantics unclear. This fails to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 states the tool 'tails WebSocket messages for one session using seq cursor', which provides a basic verb+resource combination ('tail' + 'WebSocket messages'). However, it's vague about what 'tail' means in this context (real-time streaming? historical retrieval?), and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_websocket_messages' or 'get_websocket_session'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_websocket_messages' or 'list_websocket_sessions', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts (e.g., for debugging, monitoring). Usage is implied through the 'seq cursor' reference but not explicitly stated, leaving the agent to infer from parameters alone.

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