wwise_get_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but 'Get ... info' strongly implies a non-destructive read, which is the main behavioral trait here. It adds nothing about auth requirements, cost, or side effects, but for a zero-parameter info getter the risk surface is minimal.

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 tight sentence with the resource and the returned fields front-loaded; no filler whatsoever.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and a no-arg read tool is simple enough that the description is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is the absence of any routing guidance versus wwise_query.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for 0 params applies. The listed fields (version, platform, project) do serve as a preview of the output, adding slight value.

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?

Specific verb (Get) plus resource (Wwise application info), with the returned fields enumerated in parentheses (version, platform, project). It is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like wwise_save or wwise_set_property, though it does not explicitly position itself against the read-oriented wwise_query.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no indication of how it differs from the read sibling wwise_query. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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