game_websocket

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists basic actions without mentioning lifecycle (e.g., single vs multiple connections), error handling, reconnection, or how incoming messages are received. Insufficient for a stateful WebSocket client.

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?

While the description is short (5 words), it is too terse for a tool managing a complex WebSocket connection. It lacks necessary context and is under-specified.

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 tool has no output schema and manages a stateful connection. The description omits return values, error handling, and connection lifecycle, making it incomplete for effective use.

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 the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The schema already documents each parameter's purpose, so baseline 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (WebSocket client) and actions (connect/disconnect/send messages), distinguishing it from sibling tools like game_http_request. However, it could be more specific about the context (e.g., for real-time game communication) and does not mention the 'status' 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?

The action enum (connect, disconnect, send, status) implicitly suggests usage, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like game_http_request or game_multiplayer.

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