wais_execute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that tokens and DPoP proofs are handled internally and that requests route based on api_base_url, but does not mention side effects, error handling, or rate limits, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 with a clear purpose statement, mechanism explanation, parameter mapping, and examples. It is concise, with no wasted words, and front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers dependencies, parameter semantics, and provides examples. However, without annotations, it could elaborate on edge cases or error behavior, but overall it is fairly complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains each parameter: site_url is from site.url in agents.json, action_id is the action id, params should match input_schema. Examples clarify usage, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Execute an action at a WAIS-compatible site,' clearly identifying the verb (execute) and resource (action at a WAIS site). It differentiates from sibling tools by explaining it uses agents.json from wais_discover to resolve endpoints, methods, and scopes.

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 explains prerequisites (agents.json from wais_discover) and parameter mapping, providing context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so there is room for improvement.

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