Create HTTP/WebSocket data source

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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false, destructive=false, and openWorld=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these hints: it explains the underlying mechanisms (webclientDAT, timerCHOP, websocketDAT with auto-reconnect), the JSONPath-lite selector limits, fallback behavior for non-numeric values, and the self-signed certificate silent failure noted in the URL parameter. It does not explicitly mention the side effect of creating nodes in the project or continuous network activity, but the 'create' verb and openWorld hint imply this. Overall, it's rich detail without contradiction.

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 about six sentences, longer than the ideal two-sentence example, but every sentence carries essential information: mode differences, selector syntax, output handling, and usage guidance. It is structured with clear labels (http_poll, websocket, Both) and front-loaded purpose. It is dense but not wasteful, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 tool with 12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and external I/O, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers both modes, the selector language, the generated artifacts (Null CHOP, Null DAT), the fallback semantics, and the differentiation from the simpler sibling. Combined with 100% schema description coverage and annotations, the agent has all the context needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds architectural context beyond the schema by explaining how polling cadence is tied to a timerCHOP and how websocketDAT manages reconnects, which deepens understanding of parameters like poll_seconds and reconnect_seconds. It also clarifies the selectors' mapping to output channels. This goes beyond what the schema already provides, justifying a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Advanced live-data ingest for HTTP polling and WebSocket streams' and immediately distinguishes itself as 'the richer-transport sibling of create_data_source.' This clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from its sibling, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 final sentence provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use create_data_source for simple one-knob JSON/CSV polling; use this tool when you need real POST/headers, fine-cadence timer sync, or a WebSocket stream.' This names the alternative, states when to use this tool, and when not to, which is exactly what the dimension requires.

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