get_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 token lifetime (60s), single-use semantics, the credential prerequisite, the HTTP method/path, and that the response carries `ws_endpoint`. It does not mention rate limits, whether minting invalidates prior tokens, or other side effects of the POST, so it stops short of complete.

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?

Front-loads the deprecation warning and endpoint, then the alternative, then auth requirements – sensible ordering with no filler sentences. Slight redundancy: the deprecation is restated ('Deprecated' ... 'Prefer ... for new code' ... 'kept for /stream compatibility') across three clauses.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers everything an agent needs: deprecation status, replacement routing, auth prerequisite, token lifetime/single-use, and the one response field (`ws_endpoint`). Nothing material is missing.

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 and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed since there is nothing to configure.

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 and transport: mint a short-lived token for the legacy public `/stream` endpoint via `POST /ws-tokens`. It is clearly distinguishable from `create_ws_token` (`/ws/token`) and from the plain `get_ws_token`. However, the opening 'Deprecated: use `create_ws_token_legacy`' is internally muddled, since a later sentence recommends `create_ws_token` for new code, so the primary directive is slightly ambiguous.

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?

Gives explicit selection guidance: prefer `create_ws_token` for new code, keep this only for `/stream` compatibility. That is a real when-to-use/when-not statement. The caveat is that it names two competing replacements (`create_ws_token_legacy` and `create_ws_token`), leaving the agent to reconcile which one to route to.

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