WaveGuard

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds critical behavioral context: 'No authentication required.' However, it omits other behavioral traits like read-only safety, rate limits, or error handling when the service is unhealthy, leaving gaps given the lack of annotation coverage.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first defines scope, second states auth requirements, third provides usage guidance. Information is front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter health check without output schema, the description adequately covers the essential pre-execution checks (auth, service status) and intended workflow. It lists what status components are checked, compensating partially for the missing output schema.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, establishing baseline 4 per scoring rules. No parameters require semantic explanation, and the description correctly focuses on operational behavior rather than inventing parameter documentation.

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?

States specific verb 'Check' and enumerates exact resources checked (API health, GPU availability, version, engine status). The phrase 'before scanning' effectively distinguishes this from sibling scanning tools (waveguard_scan, waveguard_scan_timeseries) by establishing the workflow order.

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: 'verify the service is running before scanning.' This creates a clear prerequisite relationship with the sibling scan tools, though it stops short of explicitly naming the scan alternatives or stating 'do not use for scanning'.

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