monitor_websocket

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds critical behavior beyond annotations: the hook installs on first call and earlier connections are missed, plus the 500-char preview limit. This significantly aids the agent in understanding the tool's runtime behavior.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences. No unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: first sentence defines purpose, second explains important behavioral caveat.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what it monitors, the preview limitation, and the hook installation nuance. No additional information about return values is needed as the tool likely provides streamed data.

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% with descriptions for both parameters ('clear' and 'tab_id'). The description does not add further parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The schema descriptions are clear and sufficient.

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 tool monitors WebSocket connections and messages with 500-character previews. It uses a specific verb ('Monitor') and resource ('WebSocket connections/messages'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like monitor_network by focusing on WebSocket traffic.

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 includes a key usage guideline: 'Hook installs on first call; earlier connections are missed.' This tells the agent to call early to capture all messages. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, the context of siblings and the guideline provided is sufficient for correct use.

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