Connect WebSocket control bus

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate those. The description adds that the scaffold includes command maps, message schema hints, status, and safety notes, which is useful context. However, it does not explain side effects like network binding, whether it overwrites existing DATs, or how 'connect' relates to 'scaffold'. With annotations present, this is a moderate disclosure.

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, front-loaded with the core action. It contains no fluff or redundant restatement. While it is efficient, it packs in technical terms that might be ambiguous, lowering it slightly from a perfect score.

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?

With no output schema and sparse parameter descriptions, the description carries a heavy burden. It only states the scaffold's contents but does not explain the tool's purpose context, configuration semantics, or what the user should expect as output. It is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and validate results.

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 only 25% (only name and parent_path have descriptions). The description itself does not explain any parameters, despite 8 parameters with defaults. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving meanings of parameters like tls, path, port, active, net_address, and command_count ambiguous.

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 action: 'Create a WebSocket DAT scaffold' with specific features including command maps, message schema hints, status, and safety notes. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on WebSocket and its scaffold nature, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar scaffold tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the large list of sibling tools with overlapping purposes (e.g., other scaffold creators), this lack of direction makes it hard for an agent to select the right tool.

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