wwise_export_docs

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns markdown and optionally writes to a file, but omits details like overwrite behavior, project state requirements, or side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal but not misleading.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose, and the second covers the return value and optional file write. No extraneous information, making it easy to scan.

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 export tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it generates, return type, and optional side effect. It could mention the target project or format limitations, but overall is adequate.

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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It successfully adds meaning for the single parameter `output_path` by clarifying it is an optional file write path. This compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 states the tool generates a Markdown audio-design doc with specific components (project summary, event list, Mermaid bus hierarchy). This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like wwise_audio_file_check or wwise_audit.

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 implies usage when a project documentation export is needed, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the context from the tool name and description alone.

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