ruyi_get_websocket_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the clear parameter's effect (clearing the buffer after reading) and the return structure (url, sent, received, timestamps). However, it doesn't mention whether reading is destructive by default (implied by clear=false), prerequisites beyond injection, or what happens if no messages exist. It adds some value but lacks depth.

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 two sentences: the first states the main purpose and return data, the second explains the clear parameter. Every sentence contributes value, and the most critical information is front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters (one undocumented), no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core function and return format but leaves pageIdx unexplained and does not specify the exact structure of the message lists. It gives a high-level overview but is not fully self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 50%: only clear has a description, and pageIdx is undocumented. The tool description only explains clear (redundant with the schema's description) and does not provide any meaning for pageIdx. Since the schema description coverage is low, the description was expected to compensate, but it fails for a significant parameter.

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: to retrieve WebSocket messages collected after Proxy injection. It specifies the resource (WebSocket messages), the verb (获取/get), and the return content (per-connection URL, sent, received lists, and timestamps), distinguishing it from siblings like ruyi_list_network_requests.

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 a clear context: use it after proxy injection ('已注入 Proxy 后'). It implies the prerequisite of having injected the proxy first. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for basic usage.

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