create_ws_token_legacy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 60-second lifetime, single-use semantics, required API credentials, and which endpoint it hits. It does not cover failure modes or rate limits, but the key behavioral traits for a token-minting call are present.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the routing advice, then auth/response details. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant against the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by noting the response carries `ws_endpoint` for the configured network and that credentials are required. That covers the essentials for a no-param token mint; only the fuller response shape and error behavior remain undocumented.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about inputs because there are none to describe, which is the correct handling for a no-arg tool.

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 and resource ('Mint a short-lived token'), names the exact endpoint (POST /ws-tokens), and explicitly contrasts with the sibling create_ws_token ('/ws/token'). An agent can distinguish this from create_ws_token and get_ws_token_legacy without opening a 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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Prefer `create_ws_token` (`/ws/token`) for new code; this is kept for `/stream` compatibility.' It names the alternative and the exact condition (legacy /stream endpoint) that selects this tool.

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