infer_websocket_schema

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates this is a safe read operation, and the description adds value by specifying exactly what analysis is performed (field types, distribution, non-JSON counts). However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as whether it consumes resources, handles large message sets, or if it requires an active WebSocket connection.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and key outputs. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it easy to parse.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose but does not describe the return value format or any behavioral constraints. The absence of an output schema means the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a schema object, a report), but it only states the inference actions, leaving the output format ambiguous.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'messages' parameter. While 'messages' is semantically implied by 'WebSocket messages', the description does not clarify that the parameter is an array of raw message strings, nor does it explain expected format (e.g., JSON strings vs. plain text) or any constraints on the array.

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 uses a specific verb ('Infer') and clearly identifies the resource (WebSocket messages) and the specific outputs (JSON field types, message type distribution, non-JSON counts). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on WebSocket message analysis rather than HTTP, runtime, or page interactions.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools for similar tasks. The only contextual hint is 'from WebSocket messages', but there's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction.

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