ws_generate_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists generated server features but does not state side effects, whether files are written, what output is returned, or how parameters like include_auth and api_key affect behavior. This is a significant transparency gap for a generation tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It quickly conveys the tool's purpose and key capabilities, and every phrase earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for selecting the tool and understanding its high-level behavior, and the schema fully covers the parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits what the generated server actually looks like, how output is delivered, and whether there are side effects.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters with meanings and defaults. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Generate a WebSocket server') and lists concrete features (connection handling, heartbeats, message routing). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ws_generate_client and sse_generate_server without needing to open the schema.

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 use case is implied by the resource name and the description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives such as ws_generate_client, ws_add_rooms, or sse_generate_server. The description gives the action but not selection criteria or exclusions.

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