radiant_resolve_wave_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-style lookup operation that returns zone records, and it adds useful context by explaining that WAVE is Radiant's on-chain naming system. It does not spell out edge cases like unregistered names or whether subdomains are included, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the operation and output in the first sentence, and provides minimal necessary context in the second. Every word adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 resolver, the description is nearly complete: it names the input, lists representative output fields, and explains the domain. The main gap is that there is no output schema and the description does not specify the exact return shape or behavior for invalid/unregistered names, but an agent can still select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already documents the single parameter with a clear description and examples ('alice', 'myapp'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Resolve'), a precise resource ('WAVE name'), and the result ('zone records (address, avatar, description, DNS records, etc.)'). This clearly distinguishes it from the other WAVE-related sibling tools such as reverse lookup, availability check, and subdomains without needing to name them.

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 description makes the use case clear—use this to resolve a WAVE name to its zone records—and explains what WAVE is. However, it does not explicitly guide the agent away from related tools like radiant_wave_reverse_lookup or radiant_wave_subdomains, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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