rba_ws_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'show', which hints at a read operation, but does not disclose side effects, whether the bridge must be running, if it can block or hang, or details about the output. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 11-word sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and efficient.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description lists the main output categories (status, clients, events) but lacks detail on return format, ordering, or what 'recent' means. It also does not clarify how this differs from other status tools, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether this is the right call.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed given the empty schema, and the absence of parameters is clear from the schema itself.

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 'Show websocket bridge status, connected clients, and recent client events' clearly states a specific verb and resource, conveying it is a read-only informational tool. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like rba_unified_status, rba_clients, or rba_events, which likely overlap in functionality.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rba_ws_start, rba_ws_stop, or rba_connection_info. It only implies use for status checks via the word 'status', but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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