wave_get_backgrounds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context by naming the backing file (~/.waveterm/backgrounds.json), which tells the agent this reads local disk state rather than live app memory. However, it says nothing about what happens if that file is missing, whether entries include image paths vs. color values, or whether the result can be empty. A read-only list tool is low-risk, but the disclosure stops short of full transparency.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The resource is named first and the supporting detail (source file) follows in parentheses, which is exactly the right ordering.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential who/what: it lists tab background definitions from a specific file. The one remaining gap is the shape of the returned entries (names, colors, image paths), which an agent might want before deciding how to present results, but that is a minor omission for a simple listing tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List all tab background definitions in Wave Terminal'. The parenthetical source path (~/.waveterm/backgrounds.json) further pins down exactly what data is returned. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like wave_get_settings or wave_get_widgets, but no sibling overlaps this resource, so disambiguation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus wave_get_settings or wave_get_widgets, and no note that it is a read-only inspection of a local config file. The only implicit cue is the word 'List', which signals a retrieval operation. Nothing states prerequisites (e.g., whether Wave Terminal must be installed) or what to do when no backgrounds are defined.

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