List open WebSockets

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, yet the description adds real context beyond them: it reads from the getgenv registry, is guarded so it returns an empty list rather than erroring when no registry exists, and describes the failure mode. It stops short of discussing ordering or cost beyond a vague 'cost=medium'.

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 opening two sentences are excellent and front-loaded, but the trailing metadata block ('Phase: observe; cost=medium; idempotency=read-only... Safety: read-only') largely repeats what the annotations already declare, and the 'inspect tool-schema' fallback sentence is boilerplate.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so ('Returns { count, sockets } or { error }'), plus per-entry fields. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor gaps in pagination/ordering.

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% and the single threadContext parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the signature, adding no format or default nuance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('List every WebSocket currently parked in the getgenv registry by ws-connect') and pins the source of the data. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling ws-connect/ws-send/ws-receive/ws-close family.

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?

Usage is implied by the registry framing ('see which sockets are still live'), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for related inspection tasks. An agent can infer intent but must guess at boundaries.

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