Send VNyan WebSocket command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the plain-text format, fire-and-forget behavior, and that it requires no plugin and connects to a native port. However, it does not mention error handling or what happens if the command is not matched.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and key details, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for a simple fire-and-forget tool with 2 parameters and no output schema. It covers the protocol, behavior, and source. Minor missing details like case sensitivity are not critical.

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 100% and both parameters have schema descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the plain-text frame format and how the command parameter is matched against a WebSocket Command node, which goes beyond the schema.

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 sends a plain-text frame to a specific WebSocket endpoint to trigger a matching node. The verb 'Send' and resource 'VNyan WebSocket command' are explicit, and the format details distinguish it from sibling tools like vnyan_api_fire.

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 mentions 'Fire-and-forget, no JSON' which implies use for simple commands without expecting a response, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like vnyan_api_fire for JSON-based commands. No exclusion criteria are provided.

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