get_websocket_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the dual behavior based on 'wsid' parameter, which is helpful, but fails to disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, using just two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and usage rules. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the primary use cases but lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral traits, and output interpretation. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but overall it's insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'wsid' parameter's effect on tool behavior, ignoring 'direction', 'show_content', 'page_size', and 'page_idx'. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to address the majority of parameters or their purposes, which is inadequate given the low coverage.

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 the tool's dual functionality: 'Lists WebSocket connections or gets messages for a specific connection.' It specifies the verb ('lists', 'gets') and resource ('WebSocket connections', 'messages'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_network_requests' or 'list_targets', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides clear context on when to use each mode: 'Without wsid, lists all connections. With wsid, gets messages.' This gives explicit guidance on parameter-driven behavior. However, it doesn't mention when to use this tool over alternatives like 'list_network_requests' or provide exclusions, which limits the score.

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