Wavedash

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

Annotations already mark it as readOnly, non-destructive, and open-world, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it is unauthenticated, returns Markdown, only fetches docs.wavedash.com pages, and returns the full page. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three concise sentences: the first states the core action and format, the second provides usage guidance, and the third adds constraints and auth status. Every sentence earns its place, and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

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 an output schema available, the return format is already covered. The description covers the action, input form, examples, usage context, domain restriction, authentication status, and read-only safety. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already explains the path parameter well. The description repeats this with additional examples and the domain restriction, but adds little semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Fetch', the resource ('full Wavedash docs page as Markdown'), and the input form ('by path or docs.wavedash.com URL') with concrete examples. It is easy to distinguish from siblings like search_wavedash_docs, as this tool fetches a specific page rather than searching.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when the user wants to see a Wavedash docs page or when exact SDK, CLI, or config details are needed.' It also gives a clear constraint ('Only docs.wavedash.com pages can be fetched'). It does not explicitly name alternatives such as search_wavedash_docs for the 'when not to use' case, but the use context is strong.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is unauthenticated, returns ranked pages with paths, URLs, and excerpts, and is read-only. This goes beyond the annotations by describing the return shape and access requirements.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds usage guidance, then return format and access traits. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a read-only search tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and that it's unauthenticated. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly mention the sibling get_wavedash_doc as the alternative when the exact page is known, but the phrase 'when the exact page is unknown' implies that distinction.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (query and limit) with descriptions and constraints. The description adds the example query terms ('sdk setup, multiplayer lobbies, unity webgl, build push') which gives the agent a sense of what to search for, but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('official Wavedash docs at docs.wavedash.com'), and the topical scope (browser game development, SDK integration, engines, CLI, upload, publishing). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from web search, which helps an agent understand its unique role among the sibling tools.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use this instead of web search for any Wavedash question when the exact page is unknown.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and when not to (when the exact page is known, presumably get_wavedash_doc is the alternative). It also names the alternative behavior implicitly by contrasting with web search.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it accepts single-line or fenced input and explicitly states it does not read files, which prevents the agent from mistakenly supplying a file path.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the purpose, then give usage triggers, then input handling. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a single-parameter validator with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is complete: it explains what the tool validates, when to call it, what input format is expected, and how the argument should be passed.

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 schema already describes 'toml' as 'Contents of wavedash.toml.' The description adds crucial disambiguation by instructing to pass the config text as the toml argument and clarifying it does not read files, which goes beyond the schema's phrasing.

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 names a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('wavedash.toml contents') and enumerates concrete issue categories: missing game_id/upload_dir, entrypoint repeating upload_dir, absolute paths, engine sections. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling doc/planning tools.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Call this whenever the user shares wavedash.toml text or asks to check their Wavedash config, even if the problem looks obvious.' It does not discuss exclusions or alternatives, but none of the sibling tools perform validation, so the context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, and the description aligns with those. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by stating 'Read-only and unauthenticated' and by disclosing what it returns: 'ordered steps, boundaries, and the relevant docs.wavedash.com pages with content.' No contradiction exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purposehol; every sentence contributes. The stage breakdown is dense but necessary for this multi-mode tool, and there is no filler or repetition. It is long enough to be useful and short enough to scan.

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 the tool's complexity, the rich input schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to call it, the stage choices, what it returns, and its read-only/unauthenticated behavior. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by expanding each stage with concrete contents, e.g., setup includes 'CLI install, sign-in, SDK init, wavedash.toml, local testing.' It also gives representative examples for engine and features, helping an agent map user language to parameters.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Plan and guide a Wavedash browser game integration.' It also defines the scope across goal, engine, and requested features. It clearly differentiates this planning tool from the sibling docs tools by instructing agents to call it first for build/deploy/upload/SDK-feature requests.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this first for any request to build, deploy, upload, or release a game on Wavedash, or to add Wavedash SDK features.' This is strong usage guidance, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer get_wavedash_doc, search_wavedash_docs, or validate_wavedash_config, so it stops short of a full 5.

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