inspect_websocket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists supported features (direction filter, pattern search, sort_by) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, auth requirements, or potential side effects. 'Inspect' implies non-destructive, but it is not explicit.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second lists prerequisites and features. No fluff, well front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core purpose and main features but omits details on the return format, direction enum meanings, and limit parameter. It is adequate but incomplete for a tool with moderate complexity.

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 40% (id and pattern have descriptions). The description reinforces the id parameter source and mentions direction, pattern, and sort_by features, but does not explain the limit parameter or detail enum values. It adds some value but not enough to fully compensate for low coverage.

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: 'Inspect actual WebSocket messages for a connection.' It specifies the resource (WebSocket messages) and the action (inspect), and uniquely differentiates from siblings by requiring an ID from list_websocket_activity and listing supported features.

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 prerequisite: 'Provide @wsN ID from list_websocket_activity.' This guides the agent to use it after listing activity. It implicitly distinguishes from other inspect tools by focusing on WebSocket. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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