wave_helper_status

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the two pieces of information returned (connection state, tool tier), which is useful, but says nothing about whether the call has side effects, how quickly it returns, or what an error/disconnected state looks like.

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 short sentences, both front-loaded with the most important information; nothing is wasted.

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 probe with no output schema, the description conveys enough: what is checked and what is reported. A slightly fuller note on the possible values or the relationship to wave_connect_helper would make it complete.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. The mention of 'tool tier' usefully hints at what the call reports.

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 ('Check whether the Seashell Helper block is connected') plus the secondary output (available tool tier). An agent can tell this is a read-only status probe, though it never names the sibling it complements (wave_connect_helper) to sharpen differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: call it to see if the helper is connected and which tier is available. No explicit when-to-use guidance relative to wave_connect_helper, self_check, or check_interactive, and no stated preconditions.

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