List WebSocket applications

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not reiterate safety. The description adds that the list is scoped to a specific cluster, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose other behavioral details like pagination or error responses, but the annotations cover the critical safety aspects, making this adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without extraneous content.

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 list tool with good annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could optionally mention that the 'include' parameter allows extending the response with related resources, but given the schema descriptions already cover this, the gap is minor.

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%; both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. It implicitly mentions the required parameter 'websocket_server' but does not elaborate on the 'include' parameter or its effects. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 verb 'Get a list', the resource 'applications', and the scope 'for a specific WebSocket cluster'. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like list_websocket_clusters, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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, such as list_websocket_applications vs. get_websocket_application. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool might be more appropriate.

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