list_websocket_notifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value beyond that by revealing the streaming/connection nature and the default event filtering (all events except logs). It stops short of describing connection lifecycle, persistence, or message framing, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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?

Good front-loading with a one-line summary followed by endpoint and args. The four filter examples are somewhat verbose for the point, the Args block is loosely formatted, and there are grammatical slips ('All events types') that a tighter edit would catch.

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 zero required parameters and an output schema present, the filter semantics are the main burden and they are well covered. Missing is the WebSocket lifecycle behavior (does the call block? how long does the connection last?) and any differentiation from the sibling `list_websockets_notifications` tool, which is a notable gap for a connection-style tool.

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 coverage is 0% — the `filter` property is just an array-or-null with no description. The description compensates strongly with the default behavior, opt-in/opt-out syntax (+/-), and four concrete examples. The effectiveness is undercut by a naming inconsistency: the prose refers to a `filters` parameter while the schema names it `filter`, which could cause an agent to pass the wrong key.

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 opens with a concrete action ('Connect to WebSocket') and specifies the exact endpoint 'GET /:/websocket/notifications', giving the agent a clear verb+resource pair. However, it does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling `list_websockets_notifications`, and the verb 'Connect' is slightly at odds with the tool name's 'list' action.

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?

No guidance is given on when to select this WebSocket transport over the obvious alternative `list_eventsource_notifications`, nor how it relates to the near-duplicate `list_websockets_notifications`. The filter examples explain parameter usage, but the description never tells the agent when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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