browser_websocket_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List captured' implies a passive read against an existing capture buffer, and 'in real-time' suggests live data, but it omits whether capture must be enabled beforehand, pagination/rate behavior, or whether this mutates state. Partial value only.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence's 'game battle packets' framing is slightly niche but still earns its place as a use-case anchor.

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/list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate on purpose and parameters. It leaves gaps around capture lifecycle and what the returned frames look like, which an agent would want but which are not fatal for a two-optional-parameter tool.

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 100%, so both 'limit' and 'direction' are fully documented in the schema, including the enum. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'List captured WebSocket frames,' and parenthetically clarifies the content (sent/received messages). This is distinct from siblings like browser_network_requests, though it never explicitly names that sibling for contrast, keeping it short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Essential for game battle packets and real-time reverse engineering' implies a usage context, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative routing (e.g., vs browser_network_requests or browser_export_traffic). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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