radiant_check_wave_available

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Check if... available' clearly signals a read-only query and qualifies the behavior with 'for registration,' but it does not explicitly state that no state is changed, how availability is determined, or how invalid/reserved names are handled.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and outcome, with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple single-parameter 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?

For a single-parameter predicate with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient, and a boolean result is strongly implied by 'check if available.' However, it stops short of explicitly stating the return type or defining availability in edge cases like invalid or reserved names.

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 schema already documents the sole parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter detail beyond restating the 'WAVE name' concept, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') and a clear object/resource ('WAVE name availability for registration'). It distinguishes itself from related sibling tools like radiant_resolve_wave_name by focusing on availability for registration, though it does not explicitly name that distinction.

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 phrase 'for registration' implies a pre-registration check, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of resolving a WAVE name or attempting registration directly. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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