list_websocket_activity

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states outputs (connections with IDs) but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, latency, or whether it's read-only. As a list tool, it's likely read-only, but this is not stated.

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 that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, output format, and a pointer to a related tool. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool returns and how to get more detail. It lacks mention of result ordering or limits, but overall is adequate for a list 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters are described in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'since' and 'until', so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it provides an overview of WebSocket connections and message counts, returns connections with @wsN IDs, and distinguishes from inspect_websocket by directing to that tool for message content.

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?

It explicitly mentions using inspect_websocket for actual message content, providing a clear when-to-use distinction. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives for other scenarios.

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