get_ws_token_legacy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It covers token lifetime (60s), single-use nature, the endpoint, and the ws_endpoint in the response, plus credential requirement. It does not mention side effects like token invalidation or rate limits, but these are implied and minimal for a token mint.

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 sentences, each dense with relevant information: the first defines the action and endpoint; the second gives usage guidance and response detail. No filler or redundancy.

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, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the token's purpose, lifetime, usage guidance, the ws_endpoint in the response, and prerequisites. Agents have enough to invoke correctly and interpret results.

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?

There are zero parameters in the schema, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details (none exist), but it does clarify the HTTP endpoint and token characteristics, which is sufficient given the parameterless interface.

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 clearly states the tool mints a short-lived, single-use token for the legacy /stream endpoint via POST /ws-tokens, immediately distinguishing it from the sibling get_ws_token tool.

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?

Explicitly instructs to prefer get_ws_token for new code and only use this for legacy /stream compatibility, providing clear alternative and when-not-to-use guidance.

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