ping_wwise

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.