wavedash_validate_configValidate pasted wavedash.toml text for basic Wavedash CLI config issues. This does not read files; provide the config text as input.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| toml | Yes | Contents of wavedash.toml. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Human-readable tool result text. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it does not read files, which is consistent and provides additional clarity. It also mentions 'basic' issues, setting expectations about scope.
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?
Two sentences, zero wasted words. Purpose is stated first, followed by a key behavioral note. Optimal length for a simple tool.
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 simplicity (one param, output schema exists, no enums), the description is fully adequate. It covers what the tool does, its input, and a critical behavioral constraint.
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% with a clear description for 'toml'. The description reinforces that the parameter is the config text. No additional semantic details beyond schema are provided, but none are needed.
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 'validate' and the resource 'pasted wavedash.toml text', specifying it checks for 'basic Wavedash CLI config issues'. It distinguishes from file reading by explicitly saying 'This does not read files'. This differentiates it effectively from 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 provides clear usage context: use when you have pasted config text, not for files. It implicitly advises against using it for file validation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives among siblings for config issues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: workflow, documentation retrieval, checklists, quickstart, SDK reference, planning, search, and config validation. No overlap.
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern with 'get_' prefix, but 'implementation_planner' deviates as a noun phrase, slightly reducing consistency.
8 tools is well-scoped for a documentation and planning assistant—not too few to cover needs, not too many to overwhelm.
The tool set comprehensively covers the stated domain: fetching docs, planning implementations, searching, and validating config. No obvious gaps for its read-only purpose.