net_websocket_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the sequence: connection with handshake display, ordered message sending, protocol-level ping with RTT, response collection, wait_for matching, and idle auto-close. It also mentions support for text/JSON messages. Minor gaps like return format or error behavior are not covered, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('WebSocket 完整会话测试') and uses arrows to show step order. Every phrase adds information, with no wasted words or redundancy. It is appropriately compact for the tool's moderate complexity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the entire workflow, satisfies parameter context, and does not need to explain return values since no output schema exists but the behavior of collecting responses is described. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could be more explicit about the exact output format.

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%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value by weaving parameter behavior into the workflow narrative: '按序发送消息' clarifies messages, '协议级 ping' relates to ping, '空闲自动关闭' explains timeout, and 'wait_for' is explicitly mentioned. This gives the agent a better functional understanding than the schema alone.

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 it's a 'WebSocket complete session test' with a specific verb ('test') and resource ('WebSocket'), and outlines a clear sequence of actions (connect, send messages, ping, collect responses, wait_for, close). It is fully differentiated from all sibling tools, none of which handle WebSocket testing.

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 description implies its usage context by enumerating the full session workflow, making it clear when this tool is appropriate (testing a WebSocket endpoint end-to-end). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list contains no similar tools, so the context is clear enough.

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