wwise_naming_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is read-only, which is critical for behavioral understanding. However, it omits details like scope (all objects in project?), whether it modifies anything, or limits on findings. The transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus 'Read-only.' It front-loads the core action and avoids unnecessary words. Every token adds value.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain types or max_findings, nor does it describe the output format. The agent lacks sufficient context to confidently invoke the tool without guessing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains pattern as a regex for optional checking, but types and max_findings are not mentioned. The agent cannot infer the meaning or constraints of these parameters from the description alone.

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 identifies the tool as flagging objects with naming-convention issues (whitespace, non-ASCII) and optionally checking against a regex pattern. 'Read-only' clarifies the operation type. This distinct purpose separates 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. It does not specify prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions such as 'use wwise_audit for broader checks.' The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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