wavexis_invoke

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

Annotations already convey destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context: it may launch an ephemeral browser, navigate to URLs, and execute arbitrary backend methods, which is potentially destructive and clarifies the open-world nature. It also specifies the return format. 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?

The description is well-structured in three concise paragraphs: purpose/escape hatch, usage guidelines, and behavioral notes (side effects, return format). Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or excessive length.

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 (generic escape hatch with many parameters) and the presence of a detailed input schema and output description, the description covers purpose, when to use, side effects, and return format. It does not list all possible backend methods but provides sufficient examples, making it largely complete for agent use.

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 description does not elaborate on any parameters beyond mentioning the method name. However, the input schema provides detailed descriptions for all properties (e.g., url, proxy, timeout). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra parameter-level meaning.

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 identifies the tool as an escape hatch for invoking any wavexis backend method by name. It distinguishes itself from dedicated sibling tools (e.g., wavexis_act, wavexis_navigate) by stating to use those instead when available, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (for methods without a dedicated MCP wrapper) and when to use alternatives (dedicated tools like wavexis_act). Provides concrete examples of methods that lack wrappers, offering clear guidance for the agent.

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