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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds critical behavioral information beyond annotations: it explains that properties like @OutputBus return the local, not effective, inherited value, and how to obtain the effective value by querying ancestors. This is substantial additional context.

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 well-structured with sections: main purpose, Args, Examples, and an Important note. It is front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it is somewhat verbose, containing extensive examples and detailed parameter descriptions, which could be slightly condensed without losing 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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, but rich annotations), the description covers the purpose, parameter details, usage context, and an important behavioral nuance (inherited properties). Examples cover typical use cases, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description provides detailed explanations for all 6 parameters, including types, defaults, and examples. It fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, adding significant meaning.

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 'Builds a WAAPI ak.wwise.core.object.get query dict from structured parameters.' It specifies the verb 'Builds' and the resource 'query dict', and differentiates from siblings like execute_waapi_query by setting up the query to be used with it. Examples further solidify the purpose.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to construct a query before calling execute_waapi_query,' providing clear usage context. Examples demonstrate common cases. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the return format (properties and lists arrays) and confirms it is a comparison operation. No behavioral traits beyond annotations, but it provides useful output context.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, usage suggestion, parameter list with examples, and return format. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary repetition.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return structure (properties and lists arrays). It covers input requirements, identifier formats, and output expectations. The tool is simple enough that this is complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides detailed parameter semantics: explains each parameter (source_path, source_guid, source_name_with_type, etc.), gives examples of identifier formats (path, GUID, type:name), and states that exactly one identifier per object should be provided. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 compares two Wwise objects and returns differing properties, references, and lists. The verb 'compare' and resource 'Wwise objects' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like get_wwise_object_info which retrieves info for a single object.

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 mentions use cases 'auditing' and 'Paste Properties workflows' but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives. It implies usage but lacks clear exclusions or comparison with siblings like get_property_and_reference_names.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the return format (child, index, edges) and the GUID constraint, without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured and concise, opening with a clear purpose, followed by parameter details and a structured explanation of the return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the simple resource (one parameter, read-only), the description fully covers the input constraint, parameter, and output structure. No output schema exists, so the detailed return format is essential and provided. No gaps for this tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides a clear explanation for the single parameter blend_track_guid, including an example GUID. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states it retrieves a list of assignments for a Blend Track, including child GUIDs, index, and edge configs. While the name already identifies the resource, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_switch_container_assignments, but the focus on Blend Tracks is clear.

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 says 'Only accepts GUIDs' and implies usage for inspecting assignments, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_switch_container_assignments) or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, but the description adds behavioral details: walking ancestor chain, returning effective bus, HDR detection, and explaining the difference from local @OutputBus. This adds significant context beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, parameter list, and return explanation. It is slightly verbose but each section earns its place. No wasted sentences.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with inheritance and multiple return fields. The description covers inputs, behavior, and all return fields comprehensively. Despite no output schema, the return structure is fully documented.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter with format examples (project path, GUID, type:name) and the constraint to provide exactly one. This is essential for correct invocation.

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 it resolves the effective inherited output bus for an Actor-Mixer hierarchy object, distinguishing itself from WAAPI's local @OutputBus. The verb 'Resolve' and resource 'output bus' are specific, and sibling tools do not overlap.

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 parameter usage guidance (provide exactly one of three identifiers) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or context. It implies its purpose but lacks situational guidelines.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, and idempotentHint true. The description adds value by specifying the return structure (lists of properties and references) and the constraint that exactly one identifier must be provided. This context is not captured by annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, return description, and parameter list. It is slightly lengthy due to detailed examples for each parameter, but every sentence adds value. Front-loading the purpose aids quick understanding.

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 read-only query tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the input constraints and output content (lists of properties/references). It does not cover error cases or how to choose between identifiers, but given the complexity, it is mostly complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so with clear examples and supported types for object_name_with_type. Additionally, it states the crucial constraint that exactly one parameter must be provided, which is not in the schema.

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 retrieves valid property and reference names for a Wwise object, with examples of properties and references. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_wwise_object_info or get_wwise_property_info by focusing specifically on names usable with setProperty/setReference.

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 you need names for setting properties/references, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools exist for other object information, but no guidance is given on choosing this tool over others.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description adds limited behavioral context beyond return structure. It discloses that the tool returns an array of assignment pairs, which is helpful but not required given annotations. Overall, annotations cover safety, and description adds moderate value.

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 concise and well-structured: a single-line summary, two usage sentences, a clear parameter list with examples, and a return type definition. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description includes the return structure (array with 'child' and 'stateOrSwitch' fields). The tool has three parameters but is simple; the description covers use cases and parameter constraints, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description documents all three parameters with clear roles and an example for object_name_with_type. It also specifies the mutual exclusivity requirement. This fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 gets 'switch/state-to-child assignments for a Switch Container,' specifies what it returns, and uses action verbs like 'Get' and 'Returns.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings by being specific to switch container assignments, unlike generic 'get_wwise_object_info' or 'get_blend_track_assignments.'

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 usage context: 'Use this to audit assignments, find unassigned switches, or document switch mappings.' It also instructs to provide exactly one of the three parameters. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool or mention alternative sibling tools, which would improve guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the return format (curveType, use, points) and implying a read-only operation. No contradictions.

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 lengthy but well-structured with a clear opening, parameter list, usage note, and return specification. Every sentence adds value, though some slight verbosity could be trimmed.

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 no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description provides complete context for the 5-parameter tool, including return values with possible enumerations. It is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: curve_type with its enum-like list, object_path with an example, and platform as optional. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Get the curve points for an attenuation object,' specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_wwise_object_info by focusing on attenuation curves.

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 includes explicit guidance on parameter usage: 'Provide exactly one of object_path, object_guid, or object_name_with_type' and details curve_type options. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying the tool returns version, platform, and build number and can confirm connectivity, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence 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 the tool has no parameters, has thorough annotations, and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does, what information it returns, and why to use it, leaving no gaps.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. Per the guidelines, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate for a tool with zero parameters.

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 retrieves information about the running Wwise installation, including version, platform, and build number. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wwise_project_info or get_wwise_object_info.

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 explicit usage context: verify Wwise version and confirm connectivity to the authoring tool. While it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, the sibling tools cover different aspects, and the use case is clearly defined.

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

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

Discloses that preview contains only first 10 results and complete results are saved to a file. No contradiction with annotations (readOnly, idempotent).

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?

Well-structured with clear warnings, example workflow, and no unnecessary text.

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 annotations and schema, description covers all essential behavioral details, including usage constraints and output handling.

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 has only query object with 0% coverage, but description compensates fully by explaining query structure and dependency on build_object_info_query.

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?

Description clearly states it queries Wwise objects and returns a summary preview. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the companion function build_object_info_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?

Explicitly instructs to use build_object_info_query first, warns against hand-crafting queries, and explains limits of preview vs saved file.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds 'No arguments required' and details the return format, which provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not add significant new safety or side-effect information.

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 three brief paragraphs: purpose, usage guidance, and return structure. Every sentence provides value, and the most critical information (purpose and no arguments) is front-loaded.

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 zero parameters, comprehensive annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, how to interpret the output, and how to use it with sibling tools. No gaps are evident.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds 'No arguments required,' which is consistent. With no parameters, the baseline score is 4, and no further parameter meaning is needed.

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 begins with 'Get all available Wwise object types,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining that it returns type definitions (classId, name, type) to be used in other queries like build_object_info_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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover valid type names for queries — pass them to build_object_info_query's from_type or where_type_is parameters' and 'Also useful for getting classId values for build_property_reference_query and build_property_info_query.' This provides clear context and links to alternative tools.

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

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

The description complements the annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.) by specifying that it returns metadata about the 'currently open' project, adding a behavioral constraint. It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentences, with the first clearly stating the action and the second providing usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 no parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context: purpose, what it returns, and when to use it.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly omits any parameter details.

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 it retrieves metadata about the currently open Wwise project, listing specific items like project name, default language, and available platforms. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual objects or properties.

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 explicitly advises using this tool 'before performing queries or modifications,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying the returned information (type, default, min/max, display name) and the prerequisite tool usage, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, usage guidance, and a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the most important information and avoids redundancy. The inclusion of 'Args:' and examples adds clarity without being overly verbose, though slightly longer than necessary.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 1 required, multiple identification methods) and lack of output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains return values, prerequisite steps, parameter selection, and provides examples, covering all aspects an agent needs to use the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It provides detailed descriptions of each parameter with examples (e.g., property_name: 'Volume', 'Pitch', object_path: '\Containers\Default Work Unit\Footstep', etc.) and clarifies that only one object identifier is needed, adding essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 gets detailed info about a specific property on a Wwise object, listing the returned attributes (type, min, max, default). It distinguishes from sibling tools by recommending use of get_property_and_reference_names first, establishing a clear purpose and differentiation.

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 explicitly guides the agent to first use get_property_and_reference_names to discover valid property names, and to use this tool to validate values before calling setProperty. It also explains the alternative object identification methods, providing clear context for when and how to use this tool.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds context about property disablement causes and clarifies the return format. No contradictions or hidden side effects are disclosed, but the description enhances understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured with a summary followed by detailed parameter explanations and return format. It is slightly verbose due to examples but remains clear and organized without redundant information.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, object identification options) and the presence of annotations covering safety, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and return format. It leaves no critical gaps for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantics for all parameters, including examples and format for property_name, platform, and object identifiers. It also specifies that exactly one object identifier must be provided, which is critical for correct usage.

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 explicitly states the tool checks if a property is enabled on a Wwise object for a given platform. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like 'is_wwise_property_linked'.

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 explains when to use the tool, including scenarios where a property is disabled due to override or platform inapplicability. It provides guidance on identifying objects via one of three methods, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives like 'get_wwise_object_info'.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, destructive false, idempotent. The description adds that it returns {'linked': true/false} and the constraint of providing exactly one object identifier. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with a clear summary first, then parameter list with examples. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 5 parameters, but could be slightly more concise.

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 no output schema, the description includes the return format. It covers parameter constraints and usage comprehensively, but could mention potential error cases or platform format variations.

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 fully explains all 5 parameters with examples and constraints (e.g., 'Provide exactly one of object_path, object_guid, or object_name_with_type'). This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Check if a property on a Wwise object is linked...' with specific verb 'Check' and resource 'property on a Wwise object'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the linked/unlinked aspect, and provides full argument details.

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 explains when to use the tool (to check linking status) and the required arguments, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools. However, the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds detail: it explains possible failure states (Wwise not running, WAAPI disabled, modal dialog blocking) and the exact return format. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences. Each sentence provides essential information: purpose, return behavior, and usage guidance. No fluff or repetition.

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 ping tool with no parameters, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what to expect in return. It is complete and self-contained.

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?

No parameters expected, and schema coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to add parameter info but still adds value by explaining what the tool does and returns. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 'Check if WAAPI is currently available.' It specifies the resource (WAAPI) and the action (ping/check). It distinguishes from sibling tools like build_object_info_query or get_wwise_object_info by being a simple connectivity check.

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 explicitly says 'Use this before other calls to verify connectivity.' This gives direct guidance on when to use the tool, and the context of being a prerequisite for other operations is clear.

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