get_property_and_reference_names

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.