get_my_wave

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-data behavior are covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail — that each batch is roughly 5 tracks — but says nothing about freshness, deduplication, or whether repeated calls return the same recommendations.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the parameter explained second. No filler; every clause 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the single parameter is explained. The main gap is the absence of any routing guidance against sibling recommendation tools, but otherwise the definition is adequate for this simple one-parameter read.

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 the description carries the burden, and it does explain 'batches' as the number of portions and clarifies the ≈5-track size per portion, which is exactly the kind of meaning the bare integer schema lacks. It stops short of stating bounds or the default.

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 names a specific resource ('Моя волна' — personal recommendations) and states it returns a portion of tracks, which an agent can distinguish from search, get_liked_tracks, or get_similar_tracks. The verb is implicit ('Порция треков') rather than explicit, and it doesn't name a sibling to contrast with, so it falls short of 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this over alternatives like get_similar_tracks or get_chart, nor any stated prerequisite such as authentication being required for personalized data. Usage is only loosely implied by 'персональных рекомендаций'.

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