websocket_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'Read' implies a non-destructive, passive operation, which is useful but not fully explicit about side effects, required setup, or data freshness. It gives a minimal but adequate signal for such a read-only 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?

The entire description is one concise sentence preceding the schema. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the essential function and object of operation. It would benefit from noting if devtools attachment is required or how returned data is shaped, but those may be obvious from sibling tools or shared contexts.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It conveys that the tool operates on a tab via 'for a tab', which maps to the tabId parameter, but it doesn't explicitly state that tabId identifies the target tab or describe any edge cases. The compensation is partial but acceptable for a single integer parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the exact resource ('captured WebSocket lifecycle and frame events') with context ('for a tab'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling network tools like network_read or eventsource_messages, so an agent can select it without opening 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing devtools attached or a capture session active), nor does it say when not to use it.

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