Start recording LCU WAMP traffic

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

Annotations declare a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: what is captured (open/close with exit codes, errors, reconnect gaps, frames) and the error condition for a double-start. It stops short of covering cost, auth, or connection lifetime, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then usage, then a labeled 'Behavior:' block — well organized and no filler. Slightly long due to the enumerated capture list, but every clause carries information.

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, the description still tells the agent what is collected and where to retrieve it (lol_wamp_record_dump) and pairs with lol_wamp_record_stop as its lifecycle counterpart. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by explaining the restart semantics operationally ('throws an error unless restart is true'), which clarifies the consequence of the flag beyond the schema's phrasing.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Open a dedicated secondary WAMP WebSocket connection... record raw frames') and states the scope precisely. It actively distinguishes itself from lol_events_start (lightweight polling) and points to lol_wamp_record_dump for retrieval.

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?

Explicit when-to-use cases are given (deep protocol diagnostics, debugging connection drops, analyzing message flows) plus a named alternative for the lighter use case ('prefer lol_events_start instead') and the follow-up tool for dumping. This is textbook routing guidance.

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