get_websocket_messages

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

The description frames the tool as retrieving messages, but annotations declare destructiveHint=true (alongside readOnlyHint=true), so the safety profile is contradictory and not reconciled. With no warning about destructive or open-world behavior, an agent cannot infer the true risk.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with scope and ordering. The pagination sentence is terse but every sentence carries needed 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?

Core call mechanics and ordering are covered, but with no output schema the description should say more about return shape or pagination response. It also leaves the contradictory destructive/open-world annotation issue unaddressed, so it is adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so id/limit/max_text are already documented. The description adds pagination semantics for `after` and oldest-first ordering, but does not add meaning beyond the schema for the other parameters; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Identifies the resource precisely as messages of a WebSocket (status 101) request and states ordering. It distinguishes from generic request/traffic siblings by WebSocket scope, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or use a clear verb in the description itself.

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?

Explains pagination via `after` ('previous next'), which is actionable. It does not state when to choose this over get_request/list_requests/search_traffic or add any exclusions.

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