execute_wave

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. 'Run one admitted wave' hints at a mutating action but does not state whether it is idempotent, what happens to the wave, what errors occur, or what the rate limit entails. The token bucket reference suggests throttling but lacks concrete behavioral details expected for an execute-style operation.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action with no filler words. Every word contributes to the intended meaning, and it is brief. However, its extreme brevity sacrifices clarity—conciseness is not a substitute for explaining 'admitted' or the token bucket without further context.

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?

Even though the tool is simple (2 string params, no output schema), the description fails to cover key aspects like return values, side effects, or the meaning of 'admitted' and 'per-host token bucket.' For a mutating tool with no annotations, more behavioral context is necessary. The lack of any output or error information makes it incomplete for an agent to call this safely.

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%, and the description does not mention either 'wave_id' or 'engagement_id'. There is no explanation of how the parameters influence execution or what 'admitted' means for them. The description provides zero help in understanding parameter semantics, leaving the agent completely reliant on parameter names 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 provides a verb ('run') and a resource ('wave') with additional context about a token bucket, but the meaning of 'admitted wave' is jargon-heavy and unclear without domain knowledge. It does not clearly differentiate from the sibling 'execute_proof'—both suggest executing something. It is not a tautology, but it fails to concretely state what the tool does or what a 'wave' is.

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 tool versus the siblings. It does not mention alternatives like 'execute_proof' or conditions under which a wave is 'admitted.' The token bucket hint implies rate limiting but does not explain when a user should call this versus other execution tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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