radiant_wave_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of indicating behavior. 'Get statistics' implies a read-only operation and mentioning 'cache size' hints at internal state, but it does not explicitly state that the call has no side effects or clarify whether the statistics represent live or cached data.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the operation and key examples with no wasted words. The parenthetical examples efficiently communicate the return scope.

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 simple no-parameter stats tool, this is mostly sufficient, but there is no output schema and the description only gives partial metrics ('total names, cache size, etc.'). An agent cannot tell exactly which statistics are included without calling the tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema leaves no semantic gaps. The description adds a little value by naming the kind of statistics returned, which is sufficient for a no-argument tool.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('WAVE naming system statistics'), with concrete examples like total names and cache size. It is distinct from the WAVE lookup/resolution sibling tools, though 'etc.' leaves the exact scope slightly open.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as radiant_resolve_wave_name or radiant_wave_subdomains. The description implies it is for high-level statistics, but it does not state exclusions or selection criteria.

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