capture_ws_payloads

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

Description discloses that the tool patches the WebSocket constructor, records send/recv, has a ring buffer cap, and a duration limit. This is good for a tool with no annotations, though it could mention potential side effects like performance impact or restriction on patching (e.g., frozen constructor).

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?

Description is very concise: three sentences for purpose, followed by bullet-point-like args and returns. Every word adds value; no redundancy.

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?

Without annotations or output schema, description covers purpose, use case, and parameters. However, it lacks details on what 'events[]' contains, whether the patch auto-removes, and the 'clear' parameter's effect. Some gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description must explain parameters. It describes three of four parameters (duration_ms, url_filter, max_events) but omits 'clear'. Explanations are clear but not exhaustive; missing parameter reduces completeness.

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?

Description clearly states the tool patches WebSocket constructor and records send/recv, with a specific use case (VMP bytecode over WebSocket). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'capture_worker_js' and 'network_capture', which have different focus areas.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when VMP fetches its bytecode over WebSocket', giving a clear context. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the provided scenario is specific enough to guide the agent.

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