wavexis_check

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, consistent with checking a checkbox. Description adds return format (JSON with status 'ok' and 'checked' boolean). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Very short description, front-loaded with action. Args and Returns sections present but minimal. No wasted words, though structure could be improved.

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?

Lacks contextual details like how to obtain session_id, difference between check and uncheck, or edge cases. With multiple sibling tools and a simple action, the description is insufficient for an agent to use confidently.

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% at top level, and the tool description simply says 'input: Check parameters', adding no value beyond the schema. Nested parameter descriptions exist in schema but tool description fails to explain 'selector' and 'session_id'.

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?

Description states 'Check a checkbox or radio button', clearly indicating the action and resource. Existence of sibling 'wavexis_uncheck' reinforces that this tool only checks. However, the input schema description mentions 'checking/unchecking', introducing slight ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wavexis_click' or 'wavexis_select_option'. Missing context on prerequisites or scenarios.

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